Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Architect seeks reapproval of Van Bortle Subaru parking-lot variance; board requests more information

Zoning Board · July 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Brad Humberstone, representing Van Bortle and R and H Architecture, asked the board to reapprove a lapsed 2022 setback variance for a parking-lot expansion; board members requested additional owner documentation and county input and did not decide the request at the hearing.

An architect representing Van Bortle Subaru asked the zoning board to reapprove a previously granted 2022 setback variance so the dealership can expand its inventory parking, but the board did not act and requested additional information before deciding.

Brad Humberstone of R and H Architecture told the board the request is the same physical project as approved in 2022 but that the earlier approval lapsed after an administrative lot-line adjustment and a new, survey-based site plan altered dimensions. “Nothing has changed other than the approval has lapsed,” Humberstone said, asking the board to reauthorize the setback reduction from 80 feet to 34 feet to match adjacent parking.

Board members pressed for more detail on the owner’s current need for extra inventory parking, planting and landscaping plans, demolition of an abandoned house on the site, and the potential for disturbance to wooded areas and a nearby creek. Chair (speaker S1) said the board could not decide that evening without county review and suggested the applicant submit an owner letter or other materials in advance of the next meeting for board members to review.

Humberstone said the owner hopes to complete paving before winter (the applicant set a target to asphalt the area before the asphalt plants close). Board members did not vote; the item remained open pending additional documentation and county input.

What’s next: The board asked the applicant to provide supplemental materials by email for review before the next hearing so members can address outstanding questions about need, landscaping and the project schedule.