Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks And Impervious Cover topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA permits after‑the‑fact garage, granting height, impervious‑cover and setback variances
Summary
The board granted three after‑the‑fact variances for a recently constructed 4,800‑sq‑ft garage on a former limestone‑mill parcel, finding practical difficulties after the owner presented historical site constraints, an encroachment agreement with a neighbor and steps taken to remediate permitting delays.
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved three after‑the‑fact variances for a large accessory garage (VAR‑25‑61A: maximum height; VAR‑25‑61B: impervious cover; VAR‑25‑61C: front‑yard setback) on a 1.337‑acre property off West Church Lane. The petitions followed a building permit complaint and subsequent department review.
Planner Drew Smith summarized the timeline: construction began in March, a complaint triggered inspection in April, and the petitioner thereafter pursued engineering and surveying to bring the site into compliance. Petitioner Robert Stone testified he had believed the structure fit an existing gravel/limestone pad and that obtaining a certified plot plan and an encroachment agreement with the adjoining property owner required time; he also described the site’s substantial drainage and floodplain constraints and the historical presence of a limestone mill and waste pile.
Attorney Bill Beggs argued the property’s peculiar history and the existence of long‑standing drive and limestone fill areas supported granting relief, and offered proposed findings that excluded historically impervious areas from the calculations. Staff recommended denial on practical‑difficulty grounds but noted petitioner’s cooperation on permits and an encroachment agreement.
The board split the votes into separate motions: it approved the height variance first (5‑0), then approved the impervious‑cover and front setback variances together (5‑0). Board members emphasized the owner’s prompt cooperation with county staff, the property’s historical character and the practical difficulty of meeting standards on a constrained lot.
Outcome: The variances were approved with staff‑recommended conditions to limit impervious cover to existing extents where appropriate. The petitioner must finalize building and floodplain permits with staff.
