Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants setback variance for carport at 1401 Jackson Avenue; applicant will apply for building permit
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance allowing a homeowner to construct a 12-by-20-foot carport at 1401 Jackson Avenue in the Neighborhood Conservation 15 district, finding corner-lot configuration and driveway placement create an exceptional hardship under the UDO; the applicant must still obtain a building permit.
The City of Florence Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance Thursday to allow a carport at 1401 Jackson Avenue that would not meet the ordinance's street-side setback for corner lots.
City planning staff explained the lot is a corner parcel where the street-side setback is 10 feet, while interior lots typically require a 3-foot side setback. Staff said the applicant, Douglas Coleman, has roughly 7 feet between the proposed carport location and the property line and that the driveway location and the home's 1953 construction limit alternatives for placing a covered parking structure.
"Because this is an open structure, it'll be open on all 4 sides, and it'll be located over an existing driveway," Unidentified Speaker 4, city staff, said, noting the carport would not interfere with sight lines because it sits far enough from the intersection and is buffered by a landscaped island with mature trees.
Douglas Coleman, the owner and applicant, testified after being sworn and said the carport will measure 12 feet by 20 feet and that there is room on the driveway for another vehicle to pass. Coleman said he had one neighbor ask about the work but reported no objections beyond curiosity.
A board member moved to approve the variance, citing the corner-lot configuration, the house's age (1953) predating current zoning, and the placement of the driveway within the street-side yard as exceptional conditions that make strict enforcement an unreasonable restriction on use. The board seconded the motion and approved it by voice vote. City staff confirmed the applicant will still need to apply for a building permit before installation.
The board recorded the variance approval and did not add special conditions beyond the usual requirement that the applicant obtain any necessary building permits and comply with development standards.
