Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment Grants Existing‑home Variances but Denies Garage Requests in Two Cases
Summary
The Lawrence County Board of Adjustment approved two variances recognizing existing homes that predate road districts but denied variance requests for new garages in both cases after finding the proposals did not meet the statutory two‑thirds concurrence requirement.
The Lawrence County Board of Adjustment split its rulings on two property‑specific variance requests on Tuesday: in each case members approved variances to recognize existing homes that predated road‑district setbacks but voted down requests to allow new garages in the setback area.
In Variance 215 (Karen Reed, 20820 Simons Place), planning staff and the owner described severe topography and rock that limited where a new 30‑by‑24 foot garage could be built. The board granted a variance for the existing home, noting it predated the right‑of‑way, but commissioners later voted 3–2 in favor of the garage variance, short of the two‑thirds concurring vote required under state law; the garage request therefore failed.
During discussion, the contractor, Ross, explained crews encountered rock when attempting to shift the garage site farther from a steep drop and a berm that constrains access. Reed described the difficulty of maneuvering vehicles within the constrained site: "I'm requesting you to put a 30 by 24 foot garage in. There's currently no place for me to store vehicles," she told the board.
In Variance 216 (Martin/Kells), staff described three alternative layouts (A, B, C) that would still require variances; the board approved the variance for the existing home corner that encroached into the right‑of‑way but again denied the proposed garage addition when the motion for approval failed to secure the required two‑thirds concurrence.
Board members who voted to deny cited the statutory tests for variances — that requests be non‑injurious to the neighborhood, necessary because of special conditions and not create an undue hardship — and said the garage proposals did not meet those criteria. The applicants were advised to return with revised plans or explore smaller garage footprints; both matters will not proceed until applicants file new proposals.
