Johnson County BZA Gives Owners 91 Days to Resolve Oversized Accessory Building Dispute

The Johnson County Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 27 granted property owners a 91‑day continuance to address a zoning violation after hearing objections from staff and nearby residents over a large detached building at 4912 Olive Branch Road.

Planning staff told the board the 1.94‑acre SR (single‑family residential) parcel contains a 2,400 square‑foot detached building that, together with an existing 700‑square‑foot detached garage, brings total accessory building area to about 3,150 square feet — far exceeding the ordinance limits tied to the primary dwelling, which staff said is about 1,360 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the variance, saying the petitioner had not demonstrated a unique physical hardship and that allowing the variance could harm nearby property character.

David Gilman, the land‑use consultant representing owners Vicky and Darren Pointer, told the board the building was completed about 18 months ago and argued the structure is screened by vegetation and lot topography. Gilman said the originally permitted solution — an 80‑foot enclosed breezeway to make the building a permitted attached addition — would be impractical and “would just look awful,” and offered a mitigation plan of perimeter evergreen plantings and a commitment to pursue an addition to the primary residence now that the property has access to sewer and water.

Neighbors who appeared as remonstrators said the planting plan would take too long to screen the building and raised concerns about construction spoils and debris visible from adjacent yards. “If they say they’re going to put in trees, what size trees?” said Brad Parsons, a nearby resident, urging the board to require a meaningful screening standard and faster cleanup. Another neighbor, Matt Winberry, said the site has been an ongoing construction nuisance and questioned whether commitments would be completed.

After debate about options — completing the original permit work (breezeway), removing or relocating the structure, or pursuing a house addition and a temporary variance — the board voted to continue the petition to the next hearing after giving the petitioners time to present a concrete plan. The board’s motion requires the petitioner to submit building plans to planning staff and to clean up spoils and debris affecting neighboring properties; the continuance carries to the BZA meeting on April 28 (91 days from the Jan. 27 hearing).

The board’s action does not approve the variance; it postpones a final decision while the petitioners pursue the conditional steps. If no acceptable plans are submitted or the conditions are not met, the board could later deny the variance and enforcement options could include requiring the owners to complete the permitted connection, remove or relocate the structure, or pursue other remedies spelled out by county code.

The BZA recorded the continuance motion and its accompanying vote; the board chair stated the conditions and told the petitioners, “Don’t let us down.” The petitioners said funds and willingness to proceed exist and that they would work with staff to show progress.

Next steps: the petition will return to the Board of Zoning Appeals at its April 28 meeting (the transcript records the board setting the timeline to the April meeting), at which the board will consider submitted building plans and whether the cleanup and other conditions have been satisfied.