Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use.variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buncombe County board denies variance to convert detached garage at 31 Twin Brooks Road
Summary
The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from property owner David Weinke to convert an existing detached garage at 31 Twin Brooks Road into a single-family dwelling, after deliberation over whether the applicant showed the statutory hardship required under state law and county code.
The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment on a split record denied a variance request for a detached garage at 31 Twin Brooks Road that the owner, David Weinke, sought to convert into a single-family dwelling.
Board members and staff reviewed the application (ZPH2025-1) after staff, Jason Payne, said the application had been advertised with an incorrect setback description but that the error did not change the substance of the request. Payne told the board the building’s proposed front door would make what had been described as a rear setback actually a side setback under county standards.
The board’s discussion focused on the four statutory criteria for variances under North Carolina law. County legal and staff explained the standards drawn from Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes and the county zoning ordinance, including that an applicant must show unnecessary hardship particular to the property and not resulting from actions by the owner.
Weinke, the applicant, said the detached garage was preexisting, sits on a concrete foundation and he wished to convert it rather than demolish and rebuild. “I don't really have a lot of use for the structure as is,” Weinke said when asked to describe his hardship, adding that demolition and rebuilding would be significantly more expensive. He also testified that the building would remain the same size and that the planned conversion would not change square footage.
Some board members said the owner had other options on the parcel — including reconfiguring proposed lots or building elsewhere on the property — and characterized financial cost as a potentially self-created hardship. Others cited the existing structure and the small lot sizes in the area as weighing toward a finding of hardship.
After deliberation and procedural exchanges about motions and the voting threshold required for a variance (a supermajority), the board moved to deny the variance. The board instructed staff to draft an order denying the permit consistent with the motion.
The board’s final recorded disposition on the record was denial of the variance request. Staff was directed to prepare the written order reflecting the board’s findings.
