Caroline County BZA tables variance request for house addition at 13644 Greensboro Road

At a meeting of the Caroline County Board of Zoning Appeals, members voted to table a variance request by homeowner Barry G. Church for 90 days. Church sought permission to construct a 20-by-16-foot bedroom and bathroom addition within the 30-foot front-yard setback at 13644 Greensboro Road in Greensboro.

The application (No. 250024) requests relief from the county’s front-yard setback requirement, cited in staff materials as section 178-92. Staff told the board the parcel is nonconforming: the lot is just under 17,000 square feet, below the R-1 zoning-district minimum of 20,000 square feet, and the buildable area is constrained by a recorded sewage reserve area (SRA). The property was originally part of a subdivision recorded in 1950 and was modified by a plat recorded in 1986, and the existing single-family house was built in 1994.

Board members raised concerns about the requested placement of the addition along the road. Chair Karen Hardy summarized the board’s legal standard for variances, saying a “variance is…subject to hardship. You have to prove hardship,” and warned that the requested addition “is encroaching 16 feet up into a major road,” a condition she said could make future road widening difficult. Hardy said the board must consider what is the “minimum necessary to afford relief.”

Staff and members walked through options. Matt Kaczynski, director of development review, and other members noted the lot’s small size and existing SRA limit where the addition could go. Kaczynski said that, based on the site plan and existing floor plan, “you might be able to build it without needing a variance at all” if the addition were reconfigured to meet setbacks, and he identified the driveway/right side of the house as a feasible alternative location.

Applicant Barry G. Church told the board he purchased the property in July 1994 and described his need for additional living space, saying, “I purchased it in July 1994…A 100 addition will not affect my neighbors at all. It’s on my property.” Church also described family needs and expressed concern about construction costs.

Members discussed practical alternatives: moving the addition to the driveway/right side of the house, which could require relocating an above-ground propane tank or air-conditioning units; building upward (adding a second story); or working with the health department if a wellhead or septic setbacks posed issues. Board members said moving the addition to the driveway side could allow the project to meet zoning setbacks and avoid the need to return for a variance.

To avoid a definitive denial — which could bar a resubmittal for a year — the board voted to table the application. A motion to table application 250024 for 90 days was made and seconded; the audio record shows three “aye” responses. The board recommended that Church meet with Kaczynski and his surveyor to explore a revised configuration and resubmit if necessary. Board staff told the applicant that resubmission would not require a new advertising fee and that the applicant could likely be scheduled within a few months if he resolved outstanding surveying and plan issues.

The board closed the item and adjourned the meeting. The BZA did not take a final vote to grant the variance at this session; the application remains pending and the applicant may return after revising the plans or pursuing alternatives discussed with staff.