Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deep Creek Watershed board grants variance for Pratt carport at Harvey Peninsula Road
Summary
The Deep Creek Watershed Board of Zoning Appeals approved variance VR843, allowing a 12-by-20 open carport at 615 Harvey Peninsula Road with side setback of 5 feet and rear setback of 8 feet; the board noted the lot’s narrowness and advised the applicant to obtain an order and building permit.
The Deep Creek Watershed Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant variance VR843 to William and Melanie Pratt, allowing a detached 12‑by‑20 open carport to be sited closer to property lines than normally permitted at 615 Harvey Peninsula Road.
The applicant told the board the carport is intended for boat storage and summertime car storage and said his lot is narrow, which limits placement options and provides informal shared access for neighbors to remove and reinstall docks. The board said it visited the site and concluded the proposed location would minimize impacts on neighboring properties.
Under the variance, the board set a side setback at 5 feet and a rear setback at 8 feet. Board members noted small measurement differences on the site plan (figures ranging about 5.6 to 6 feet) and said they would round setback requirements to avoid requiring a repeat filing. The board also advised Pratt that an order will be issued and that he must obtain a building permit before beginning construction. The board reminded those present that any party aggrieved by the decision has 30 days to file an appeal.
The application included these property identifiers in the record: 615 Harvey Peninsula Road; Tax Map 59, Parcel 233, Grid 15; zoning classification Lake Residential 1. The carport was described on the record as an open‑air post‑and‑roof structure with no enclosed walls and no exterior lighting.
The board discussed how the variance provision applies to narrow lots and said this situation matched the ordinance’s intent to provide relief where lot configuration leaves no reasonable alternatives. A motion to approve the variance was made, seconded and approved by the board (voices recorded as “Aye”).
The board’s action is procedural and limited to the zoning variance; construction remains subject to issuance of a building permit and any applicable county codes or conditions noted in the order. If the decision is appealed, the case could proceed to the circuit court; the board noted that circuit court appeals often return matters for reconsideration.
No fiscal impacts or third‑party funding were identified in the hearing record. The board closed the public hearing and adjourned after completing the agenda.
