Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves setback variance for Rolling Fork Court wedge lot over neighbor objections (5‑1)
Summary
The Board approved a reduced street‑setback variance for a wedge‑shaped lot on Rolling Fork Court despite neighbors’ concerns about stormwater, slope disturbance, and privacy; the vote was 5‑1.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5‑1 on May 21 to grant a reduced contextual street‑setback variance for a wedge‑shaped lot on Rolling Fork Court, authorizing a footprint and two‑story home the applicant says is necessary because of the site’s steep topography.
Opponents told the board the proposed house — roughly 4,800–4,900 square feet across two stories with a modest footprint — would sit closer to neighbors than the code’s contextual setback allows and would increase impervious area and cut into a basin and steep slope. Jacob Underwood and other neighbors cited repeated water flows on the plane where the applicant proposed to site the house and warned that cutting into the slope could change drainage patterns: “If you put a house on top of that area, it is going to force a lot more water down to the street and create problems for the people downhill,” one neighbor said.
Applicant representatives submitted additional grading and geotechnical work, including test pits and an analysis of colluvial soils, and said retaining‑wall designs and stormwater measures would mitigate runoff. The applicant’s team said a smaller, compliant house could be built but that the topography created a practical hardship that justified the requested setback relief.
Board members balanced the hardship arguments and the technical evidence and concluded the lot’s unusual shape and slope constituted a qualifying hardship under the variance standard. After discussion and questions about retaining walls, cut slopes and stormwater permits, the board approved the variance by a 5‑1 vote. The board noted that any construction must still meet stormwater, building and geotechnical permitting requirements and that permits and inspections would be required before any work could proceed.
Neighbors said they will monitor implementation and asserted the technical permit reviews — not the variance itself — must protect adjoining properties from increased flow and erosion.
