Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auburn BZA lets existing patio remain but denies covered-porch setback variance at 203 Bridgewater Boulevard
Summary
The Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a one-percent impervious surface variance so a 304 sq ft stamped-concrete patio can remain at 203 Bridgewater Boulevard, but denied a request to reduce the rear setback to allow a covered porch. The board split the two variances and voted on them separately.
The Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustment voted to allow an existing patio to remain but rejected a second request to permit a covered porch that would encroach into the rear setback at 203 Bridgewater Boulevard. The board approved an impervious-surface-ratio variance for the one-percent overage but denied the rear-setback variance during its June meeting.
The decision resolved case VZ2026-007, a two-part request described by planning staff: (1) an ISR variance to allow 36% impervious coverage where the ordinance allows 35%, preserving a roughly 304-square-foot concrete patio added after the home's certificate of occupancy; and (2) a rear-setback variance to reduce the required 20-foot setback to about 8 feet 4 inches (motion language varied in the packet/transcript). The property was identified in the packet as 203 Bridgewater Boulevard in the Cary Creek subdivision; staff said a certificate of occupancy was issued in November 2021.
Planning staff told the board the patio was added after original construction and that the current owner is the second owner. Staff characterized the addition as nonconforming and said that attachments treated as part of the house must meet full setback requirements, whereas a detached covering would be subject to different setbacks. The staff report and staff remarks repeatedly noted that when noncompliance is discovered in permits or inspections, the typical remedy is to require changes to reach compliance for future permits.
Applicant Randall Pinkston, represented at the hearing, said he bought the corner lot with the concrete pad already in place, described the lot as small and exposed, and urged the board to consider the hardship of heat, bugs and drainage that motivated the proposed covered porch. "I would not be here if there was any other option," Pinkston said, asking the board for consideration.
During deliberations board members separated the two requests and took separate motions. On the ISR variance motion the board recorded roll-call votes in favor from Will Faulkner, Mary Boyd, Amy Sorrells, Leticia Smith and Elizabeth (name spelling appears as Strand/Strang/Strain in the packet and transcript) and approved the variance so the existing patio may remain. On the subsequent motion to approve the attached covered-porch setback variance, the board voted unanimously against the motion (same five members recorded as voting "no"), and the motion failed.
Board discussion emphasized alternatives and code constraints: several members and staff noted that a detached covering or gazebo would be treated differently under the ordinance (a detached structure would typically need to be 10 feet from the house), and that uncovered decks under 30 inches may extend five feet without variance. Staff also warned that a granted variance runs with the land and would apply to future rebuilds.
The board had no further business and adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The denial of the setback variance means the applicant may either pursue a redesign that meets the established setbacks or pursue a detached alternative subject to the applicable separation requirements; inspections staff would follow up on compliance if the board did not approve a variance.
