Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Confirming Appeals approves variance for 14-by-32 portable storage building

Board of Confirming Appeals · July 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Confirming Appeals voted to approve a variance allowing a resident to place a 14-by-32 portable storage garage adjacent to an existing century-old garage.

The Board of Confirming Appeals voted to approve a variance request that will allow a resident to place a 14-by-32 portable storage garage adjacent to an existing garage.

Jason, a resident who spoke to the board, said he planned to purchase the storage unit and that placement was limited by the slope of his lot and a creek in the backyard. "I'm looking into purchasing, 14 by 32 portable storage storage garage, for my property," Jason said, adding that the constraints meant placing the unit next to the existing garage "makes sense... just for the aesthetics." He also said his house and existing garage predate modern setback patterns: the house is “over a 100 years old.”

Board members and staff asked clarifying questions about siting and measurements. A board member asked whether the new building would be parallel to the existing garage; Jason confirmed it would be. Planning staff member Lauren confirmed the existing garage is about 56 feet from the center of the road, and the board discussed how the structure would sit relative to that distance.

As part of deliberations, the board read the standard findings required for granting a variance, including that approval would not injure public health, safety or general welfare; that adjacent property values would not be substantially adversely affected; and that strict application of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties. After discussion the board put the motion to a vote; members answered "aye" and no opposition was recorded. Board members told the applicant to coordinate with David Ferguson for follow-up steps.

The meeting also included approval of minutes from the June 3 meeting and concluded after members moved to adjourn. No other substantive land-use items were taken up at this session.