Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves accessory-structure variance for Greenwood property with landscaping, driveway conditions
Summary
The Board approved a variance allowing Timothy and Renee Trotter to build a large accessory structure without a 36-inch masonry wainscot, subject to landscaping, driveway surfacing and permit conditions; vote was 4-0.
The Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 25 approved a variance allowing an accessory structure larger than 300 square feet at 10770 Creek Road to be constructed without the UDO-required 36-inch masonry wainscot, subject to landscaping and driveway surfacing conditions.
Petitioner Renee Trotter described the proposal as a backyard pole-barn-style accessory structure on a three-acre parcel behind a 1960s red-brick ranch, saying it "wouldn't be seen by the street." Trotter told the board she and her husband need additional storage for a boat and equipment and that the structure would match the house's colors.
Planning staff (Zach and Steph) expressed concern about the size and location of the proposed accessory structure, noting it is large relative to the house and close to neighboring subdivisions. Staff recommended two conditions if the board approved: install landscaping equivalent to a small buffer yard for 200 feet along the west property line (counting preserved plants and trees), and require the driveway for the accessory structure be constructed with an approved surface material (concrete, asphalt pavers or pervious pavers) rather than gravel; staff also proposed a two-year timeline to replace the existing gravel driveway.
Neighbors asked questions about how the wainscot requirement is applied historically and whether the new structure would match the house. John Shell (neighbor) raised questions about when the ordinance requires a masonry wainscot and noted nearby older barns and outbuildings.
The board voted 4-0 to approve the variance with the two staff-recommended conditions: (1) landscaping equivalent to a small buffer yard along 200 feet (specified as six canopy trees, four ornamental trees and 20 shrubs, with existing plantings counting toward the requirement if they meet UDO standards); and (2) driveway surfacing of concrete, asphalt pavers or pervious pavers with the existing gravel drive to be replaced within two years and a right-of-way/road-cut permit obtained as required. Corporation counsel was directed to draft written findings of fact for the petition.
Why it matters: The variance allows the property owners to build a large accessory structure without the masonry wainscot that the current UDO generally requires for new structures, while imposing landscape and driveway requirements to reduce visual impact and ensure a permitted driveway surface.
Next steps: The petitioner must comply with the conditions as part of permit review; building-permit review and the right-of-way/road-cut permit are required before construction can begin, and the written findings of fact will be returned to the board for formal adoption.
