Graham County board approves 3-foot side-setback variance for attached garage

The Graham County Board of Adjustment voted to approve a variance allowing property owner Eric Ornelas to build an attached garage with a 3-foot west side setback from the property line instead of the 10-foot setback required for structures attached to a main livable dwelling.

The decision came after county building inspector and zoning enforcement officer Mark Kavanaugh described the application and the site's unusual "pie-shaped" lot configuration and explained why staff denied a standard permit. Kavanaugh told the board he was arguing both “why he should have it and why he shouldn't have it” and described the proposal as an attached three-bay garage to be built on an existing engineered concrete pad; he also said the current Connex box on the site would be removed to provide emergency access.

The variance was requested because the existing garage is attached to the main living structure, which under county rules makes the roofed area subject to the 10-foot side setback. Kavanaugh said the proposed rear wall of the new garage would sit about 3 feet from the west property line; he told the board the request exceeded his administrative authority and therefore required a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment.

Neighbors and others spoke during the public comment period. Cindy Woodman, who said she owns property at 1305 Central Avenue and a vacant lot adjacent to Ornelas' property, opposed the variance. Woodman argued the change would amount to "overbuilding the lot," could affect neighborhood character and set a precedent, and urged the board to require the owner instead to expand the pad eastward to meet the 10-foot setback. She said: "Variances do set precedents, whether it wants to be acknowledged or not. I would say vote no on the variance."

Ornelas told the board he retired earlier this year, that vehicles parked at the site were company trucks that would no longer be there, and that his goal was to build a structure that "matches" the house rather than a temporary metal carport. He described the pad and footing work already completed and told the board the slab and footings were engineered to accept a building. He said he would obtain required engineering and building permits if the variance were approved.

County staff answered technical questions for the board. Staff reported the lot coverage for the property currently is about 0.16 of the lot; the proposed addition would increase coverage by about 0.02 to roughly 0.18, well below the RSB zoning district's 50% lot coverage limit. Staff also explained that some septic/leach-line constraints limit where structures can be placed on the lot and that any future buyer seeking additional building on adjacent lots would likely have to relocate septic infrastructure to do so.

Board members asked about drainage and on-site retention; Ornelas and staff said the existing pad includes a guttered curb that channels water toward the back corner of the lot and into the alley, and staff said on-lot retention requirements for the subdivision apply. The board also discussed forthcoming changes to state law on accessory dwelling/casita setbacks that a staff member said will take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and would reduce some future side-setback requirements, but not to the 3 feet requested in this hearing.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve the variance, another member seconded, and the motion carried. The meeting record shows the motion passed with members responding "Aye. Motion carried." The transcript does not record a named mover, seconder, or a roll-call tally in the record provided.

If the variance was approved, Ornelas was told he still must apply for and obtain a building permit; staff said they will review plans and inspect footings and the proposed work at the permit stage. Kavanaugh told the board that the variance being sought was specifically for the west side 3-foot setback and that other standards (lot coverage, drainage, building permit review) remain applicable.

The board concluded the hearing and approved the variance. The board chair confirmed the motion and the meeting adjourned.