Board Upholds Planning Commission: 3‑Foot Setback OK for Dorrington Garage After Heated Hearing

Calaveras County supervisors voted unanimously Nov. 25 to uphold a Planning Commission decision that allows construction of a 900‑square‑foot detached garage at 2244 Shaston Way in Dorrington with a reduced three‑foot front setback.

The decision follows a public hearing that stretched over several hours. Brett Sampson, the county’s planning director, told the board the applicant originally sought a 1,200‑square‑foot garage with a zero‑foot setback. After review and public comment the Planning Commission approved a revised 900‑square‑foot design and added conditions requiring a three‑foot front setback and a sectional garage door. Sampson said staff found the parcel’s steep topography — about a 25% slope — created a special circumstance that justified the variance under county zoning standards.

Neighbors led by appellant Renee Engle urged the board to deny the variance, arguing the structure would be “out of scale,” would cast prolonged shadows and could worsen drainage or septic impacts for properties downslope. "It's not in character with Big Trees Village," Engle said during her remarks, adding she had letters from other neighbors opposing the project. Several residents said they feared the approval would set a precedent for large storage structures on small lots.

Applicant Rodney Winkler said the property lacks usable off‑street parking because of steep grades and winter snow, and that the revised plan addresses many concerns. "We are simply asking for the ability to use our property in the same basic way that nearly every other home around us already can," Winkler said, noting prior review by the property owners association and county departments including public works and fire.

Planning staff responded to neighbor concerns: they said public works required an encroachment permit for any right‑of‑way work, building permit review would address drainage and geotechnical issues, and that the proposed building elevations were within the county’s 35‑foot height limit (street‑facing side about 18.5 feet; rear elevation about 28.5 feet, per the submitted scaled plans).

After discussion the board said the matter largely turned on the variance finding and whether special circumstances existed. Multiple supervisors noted that in the absence of enforceable CC&Rs the county’s zoning code governs and that variances for constrained lots have precedent. Supervisor Topanelli observed the steep slope created technical limitations. Supervisor Ballendorf moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval; the motion was seconded and passed 5‑0.

The board’s action upholds Variance 2025‑009 with its conditions. Staff said any required encroachment, building‑permit geotechnical review and easement vacatur steps remain prior to construction.