Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Variance request for corner‑lot addition at 301 Oakfield Avenue tabled until homeowner can attend

Easly City B zoning board of appeals · April 24, 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 Easly City B zoning board of appeals tabled a request to reduce the 30‑foot corner‑lot side setback at 301 Oakfield Avenue to about 15 feet so the applicant can explain accessibility needs in person; a neighbor raised sight‑distance and legal‑standard concerns.

The Easly City B zoning board of appeals on an unspecified date tabled PLN V2601, a request to reduce the required 30‑foot corner‑lot side setback at 301 Oakfield Avenue to roughly 15 feet, after board members said the homeowner should be present to explain accessibility needs. Mario Ditrio, presenting staff findings, said the applicant was not present and reported she told staff she has a child with a disability and wants an addition to make the house more accessible.

The request would allow an expansion of the primary structure that staff said would encroach into the setback because the house sits on a corner lot with two front yards. Ditrio told the board the converted carport and resulting change in floor elevation had created steps the applicant wanted to eliminate by attaching an addition. Staff reported no neighbor complaints in the packet.

A resident who spoke during public comment urged denial or deferral, citing sight‑distance concerns from the corner and the high legal standard for variances. The resident told the board that staff had offered alternatives — such as moving or relocating the addition — but said the applicant had refused those options.

Board members expressed sympathy for the applicant’s mobility concerns but agreed it would be preferable for the homeowner to attend. A motion to table the item until the next meeting and request that the homeowner be present carried. No formal approval or denial was recorded at the meeting; the matter will return to the board for further consideration when the applicant appears.