Laurel homeowner seeks variance to legalize shed and pool house encroaching on rear-yard setback

Viji Nathan, the property owner of 10048 Superior Avenue in Laurel, asked a county hearing to grant a 7-foot rear-yard setback variance so a shed and a converted pool house that now sit 5 feet and 3 feet from the rear property line, respectively, can remain.

The chair opened the case by describing the request to reduce the required 10-foot rear setback to 3 feet to legalize the existing structures. Nathan told the board she purchased the home with the buildings already in place and first learned of the setback issue after a tenant filed a complaint last year. "I did not know anything about setback," she said, noting county inspectors previously signed off on plumbing and electrical work when permitting the pool house under prior ownership.

The hearing reviewed the five findings required for a variance. On the first finding — whether unique physical conditions of the lot make strict compliance difficult — Nathan and the chair discussed topography and a retaining wall along one side of the property. Nathan said the retaining wall and evergreen plantings were installed by a prior owner to address severe slope and flooding. She described drainage pipes that divert runoff toward a county stream and said the mitigation reduced flooding for her and a neighbor.

The chair said the neighborhood is residential and borders homeowners association property at the rear and concluded the variance "would not substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent properties." The board also addressed whether the hardship was self-created; the chair noted a caveat that purchasing a property with preexisting nonconforming structures does not automatically create a self-inflicted hardship and said the record supports that Nathan did not create the condition.

The chair reviewed measurements in the record: the shed is 5 feet from the rear line, the pool house 3 feet, and the applicant seeks a 7-foot reduction from the 10-foot requirement, which the chair described as the minimum relief necessary because the structures already exist. The property is not in a historic district, the chair noted.

Nathan told the board she wants to "do everything properly" and thanked county staff for guidance during the application process. The hearing was closed; the chair said a decision and order will be issued shortly.

The next procedural step is the issuance of the board's written decision and order, which the chair said will follow the hearing.