Huntersville planning board backs setback flexibility for alley‑accessed garages, limits mechanical encroachment

The Huntersville Planning Board on Nov. 19 recommended approval of a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow some attached garages to sit closer to rear property lines and permit certain mechanical equipment to encroach into rear‑yard setbacks — subject to new limits and screening.

Staff presented TA‑25‑11, submitted by developer Northwood Raven, saying it would modify the zoning ordinance to allow attached garages connected to a house by a breezeway (staff and applicant proposed a maximum 15‑foot breezeway) to be treated differently than fully attached additions when the lot is accessed from an alley. The amendment would also provide a third option to allow mechanical equipment such as HVAC and pool systems to be placed in the rear yard setback if screened from view. Staff told the board the change is intended to address recurring permitting issues on small lots and said the amendment is consistent with LU‑8.1 and LU‑8.2 of the Huntersville 2040 plan.

Board members questioned practical effects and potential abuse. Several members worried a homeowner could attach a long breezeway and effectively place a large building within 5 feet of a rear property line; others raised concerns about impervious coverage, pool equipment noise, and public‑safety implications of moving equipment closer to neighboring structures. Staff said Mecklenburg County code enforcement and the fire authority would retain authority to enforce safety and that the physical constraints of narrow (≈50–60 ft) lots make extremely large rear garages unlikely.

To respond to those concerns the board included limiting language: the planning board’s recommendation conditions the mechanical‑equipment encroachment so units must be located within 10 feet of the primary structure (measured from the structure, not the neighbor’s property line) and requires screening per Article 7. The amendment as recommended applies only to single‑family detached homes meeting the alley/access criteria and to garages (not ADUs). The planning board voted to recommend approval with those conditions; the measure now goes to the town board for final action on Dec. 16.

The recommendation also asks staff to clarify screening standards and consider a measurable maximum encroachment (e.g., a fixed number of feet from the structure) when the town drafts ordinance language for final adoption.

If the town board adopts the change, affected development will remain subject to county code enforcement and any site‑specific safety review (including fire) when building permits are submitted.