Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves conditional use to convert 198 Adeline Drive to two-family dwelling; lot‑area variance granted, parking variance fails
Summary
The Carroll County BZA approved a conditional use allowing Adeline Drive LLC to convert 198 Adeline Drive to a two‑family dwelling and granted a lot‑area variance; a requested variance reducing required parking failed for lack of a second motion.
The Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a conditional‑use application to convert 198 Adeline Drive from a single‑family dwelling to a two‑family dwelling (case 6554). The board also voted to grant a lot‑area variance sought by the applicant, Adeline Drive LLC, but declined to grant a requested parking variance after a motion to approve the parking variance failed for lack of a second.
Applicant Gregory Brock testified that the property is currently a split‑foyer house with an unfinished basement that could be converted to mirror the upper‑floor layout, creating two dwelling units of approximately 1,288 square feet. Brock said the lot is roughly 10,881 square feet and acknowledged the ordinance language requiring 7,500 square feet per unit; the application sought a variance from a 15,000‑square‑foot interpretation for a two‑family dwelling. Brock said he could alternatively reconfigure lot lines (the applicant owns adjacent properties) or provide additional on‑site parking if the board did not grant variances.
Brock described parking arrangements on Adeline Drive, noted existing overflow parking pads on the property complex, and said his preference was to create a 20‑by‑20 parking pad on adjacent property he owns to serve the unit; he also testified that he could accommodate required parking on site if necessary. Counsel Stephanie R. Brophy emphasized that a two‑family dwelling is a presumptively valid use in the R‑10000 district and said that, if the board declined any variance, the applicant could comply by adjusting lot lines or adding parking.
Board members deliberated about sequencing votes and legal standards for area variances versus conditional‑use approvals. The board recorded three separate motions: (1) approve the lot‑area variance, (2) approve the conditional use for a two‑family dwelling, and (3) a motion to approve the parking variance that failed for lack of a second. The chair said a written decision will follow within 30 days and explained appeal rights.
