David H. Lair requests setback variances to build two‑car pavilion/carport in Howard County

David H. Lair, a Howard County property owner, appeared at an Aug. 4 hearing seeking two zoning variances to construct a two‑car pavilion-style carport over an existing gravel parking pad on his property.

Lair asked to reduce the side-yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet for roughly 20 feet along the proposed structure and to reduce the rear-yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet, a six‑foot reduction along the rear of the pavilion, according to materials and testimony presented at the hearing. "I've had the parking pad there for 12 years," Lair said, describing the proposed structure as a "pavilion carport" that will be stick‑built and architecturally match his existing garage.

The hearing examiner opened the case, identified on the record as BA205009V, and led Lair through the standard variance findings required under county zoning review. "Alright. Now, there are certain findings that I have to make, so let's just go through them," the hearing examiner said while reviewing the criteria. The examiner asked Lair to explain how his lot's physical characteristics create a practical difficulty, whether the variance would change the neighborhood's character, whether the owner caused the difficulty, and whether the requested variance was the minimum necessary.

Lair told the examiner the parking pad has been in place for about 12 years and that the lot is a long, narrow flagpole parcel in the area, with wooded screening between his yard and his neighbor's. He provided photographs and drawings showing the yellow rectangle of the existing pad and described the pavilion as having seven posts, roof trusses and no walls. He said the structure would use the same roof pitch and shingles as his adjacent garage and that he expected it to look "like it's always been there" once completed. He said he could build a cheaper prefabricated cover but preferred a higher‑quality, stick‑built structure and estimated it would cost "at least 10 times" more than an inexpensive $2,000 prefab unit.

On the question of neighborhood impact, the hearing examiner observed that surrounding properties are developed with detached single‑family homes and asked whether the pavilion would alter the "essential character of the neighborhood." Lair argued the addition would be a "very de minimis intrusion" into the building restriction area—about 100 square feet, or roughly 0.2% of the total restricted area he referenced—and not visible from the street because of vegetation between properties.

When asked whether the practical difficulty had been created by the owner, Lair said he had not created the siting; he and his wife had not built the house and he has occupied the property for 12 years. The examiner confirmed there is no conditional use on the property and concluded the evidentiary portion of the hearing. Lair also acknowledged assistance from county zoning staff, mentioning by first name that "Hannah" had been responsive during the application process.

The hearing examiner said the record in BA205009V was concluded and that a "decision and order will be shortly forthcoming." No formal vote or decision was announced at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: none (decision pending).