Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves expanded driveway variance after neighbor safety concerns
Summary
After testimony about maneuvering difficulty and a near-miss with a mailbox and lamppost, the Board of Zoning Appeals amended an appellant's request and approved an 8-foot variance to permit a 32-foot driveway within 10 feet of the right-of-way (BZA25-19) by a 4-0 vote.
The Green Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance on Aug. 21, 2025, to allow a driveway wider than the code limit after the applicant and a homeowners' association representative argued the change was needed for safety and maneuverability.
The board had been presented with BZA25-19, in which appellant Andrea Girfin asked to extend a driveway from 18 feet to 25 feet to improve access for a travel trailer, citing party-supplied photos, measurements and a time-lapse video showing tight turns around a lamppost and mailbox. Girfin said the request was not for long-term storage; she and her HOA noted the association allows trailers on property only for short periods.
Architectural-committee chair Oscar Mascarenhas, speaking for the neighborhood review board, said he supported the change for safety reasons and pointed to recent speed monitoring on the street. Mascarenhas said impervious-area concerns were mitigated by existing retention ponds in the development.
Board members questioned exactly where the city measures driveway width (at the base vs. at the curb/flare) and whether the applicant's drawings accurately reflected the curb cut. After discussion, the board moved to modify the requested relief: rather than a one-foot variance to 25 feet, the board framed the approval as an 8-foot variance to permit a 32-foot driveway at the curb/flare area, with clear instruction that the approval should not authorize work beyond what the applicant presented.
The motion to approve the variance as amended passed by recorded roll call, with four affirmative votes and no negatives.
The board cited Green Codified Ordinance Chapter 157 (planning and development code) in discussing applicable measurement rules and limits. No conditions requiring reconstruction or mitigation beyond standard city construction standards were specified on the record; the Chair noted the applicant's commitment to meet city-engineer and staff construction standards.
The board's action will allow the applicant to proceed with the driveway apron and apron extension as presented to staff and the board.
