Lexington zoning board denies variance for shed at 100 Kelway Circle

The Town of Lexington Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday denied a variance request by Barry and Donna Stamy to locate a non‑portable storage shed 1 foot 3 inches from an adjacent property line at 100 Kelway Circle, a location that conflicts with the zoning ordinance’s five‑foot setback requirement. The board voted to deny the variance in a roll‑call vote, with members Brad Cington, Ron Fischer, Troy Fight, Justin Brown and Ryan all voting to deny.

The board opened the meeting by reiterating the statutory standard it must meet to grant any variance. "State law requires us to grant a variance if and only if we find each of the following four statements are true," Troy Fight said, listing the four criteria the board must consider. Board members said neighborhood testimony and uncertainties about measured setbacks undercut the applicants’ case on those criteria.

The Stamys told the board they had recently moved to the Birkshshire neighborhood and said lot topography — the backyard drops at a steep angle — limited where a shed could be sited. Barry Stamy said they selected the side‑yard location after consulting a local company, and that the company had told them they did not need a building permit: "we were just kind of went by his thinking he was a professional," Stamy told the board. He also presented a signed letter from adjacent neighbor Carol Brantley indicating she did not object to the building’s placement.

Neighbors and former neighborhood officers contested that account. Joe Tansing, a former HOA president, told the board the subdivision’s covenants require outbuildings to be placed where they cannot be seen by other lots and said the current placement departs from longstanding neighborhood standards. A written statement read for Lynn Kaine said the structure measured "19 ft long and 12 feet in height" and warned that allowing the requested 1‑foot‑3‑inch setback "would look like favoritism and not equal treatment for community homeowners." Marcia Smith, a former Architectural Review Board member, said the ARB approval form had an irregular signature process and that she would not have approved the application alone.

Board members pressed the applicants on precise measurements and whether a land survey established the property line. Applicants acknowledged they did not have a survey and had taken measurements from the fence with a tape measure or ruler. Several members said that absence of verified measurements made it difficult to grant a variance that specifies an exact setback distance.

During deliberations board members focused on the fourth statutory criterion — whether granting a variance would be "of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the public good" or harm the character of the district. Several members said the neighborhood testimony that the shed is visible from multiple lots weighed against a finding that the character of the district would not be harmed. One board member also asked whether a smaller or differently sited structure might have avoided the need for a variance.

A motion to deny the variance passed unanimously in a roll‑call vote. The board announced the outcome to the applicants, who thanked the panel and members of the public for attending. Board members encouraged residents to sign up for meeting alerts and participate in upcoming stakeholder meetings related to the town’s vision plan.

The denial is a final administrative decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals; the opening statement at the meeting noted that parties who believe the board made an incorrect decision may appeal to circuit court within time limits set by state law.