Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions hardship basis for Smuts garage variance request
Summary
An applicant asked to reduce a road‑centerline setback to 47.19 ft for an attached garage (case 26‑028). Board members questioned whether the need is self‑imposed and suggested alternatives; no variance decision was made and the applicant was urged to explore other design options.
An applicant requested a variance (case 26‑028) to allow an attached garage corner to sit 47.19 feet from the Shaddestown Road centerline rather than the required 50 feet.
The applicant said moving the garage back would conflict with an interior stairwell and that the configuration provides safer, direct access. Several board members noted the variance hardship criteria and cautioned that adding a garage to an existing house is often considered a self‑imposed hardship. Board members suggested alternatives including shortening the garage, creating a covered corridor between structures, or repositioning the door to avoid the variance.
Why it matters: setback variances are evaluated against specific hardship criteria; the board suggested the applicant research precedents and consider design alternatives before returning with a revised plan or stronger justification.
What’s next: the applicant was advised to consult prior similar cases and return with additional justification or revised plans for the board’s consideration.
