Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Howard County BZA approves 20-foot setback variance for 80×80 accessory building at 1594 South 560 West

Howard County Board of Zoning Appeals · January 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Howard County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a 20-foot variance to Section 2.04 (minimum side yard setback) allowing an 80-by-80 'pool barn' to be sited 10 feet from the western property line at 1594 South 560 West after staff cited flood-plain and grade constraints; the approval passed by voice vote.

The Howard County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a zoning variance (Case 1 C V 26) on Jan. 27 to allow an 80-by-80 accessory structure to be built closer to the western property line at 1594 South 560 West.

Staff introduced the petition of Brock Smith, which requests a 20-foot variance to Section 2.04 (minimum side yard setback) so the applicant can construct an 80-by-80 pool barn on the parcel in an A-D zone. Julie Smith, who identified herself as a property owner of 1594 South 560 West, told the board the variance is needed for easier construction and to provide access and more room on the east side of the building for large trucks. In her petitioners findings she stated the adjacent property is used as farmland and for hunting and that the addition would not substantially harm neighboring property values.

Unidentified Speaker 4 read staff findings supporting the request, stating the addition would be at least 10 feet from the western property line, would not create safety hazards or encroach on recorded easements, and that strict application of the ordinance created a practical difficulty because of a flood plain on the property and a steep drop-off at the east side of the barn. Following the presentation a motion to approve Case 1 C V 26 was made and seconded; the board approved the variance by voice vote with members saying 'Aye.' The transcript does not record a roll-call tally or identify individual votes by name.

The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the accessory building sited closer to the property line than Section 2.04 normally permits. No conditions, permit timelines or construction permit approvals were recorded in the transcript; any required building permits or further agency approvals were not specified in the record.