Applicant denied lot-configuration variance after board questions legal access and tree protection

Dean Freeman, the applicant, told the board he and his wife wanted to preserve a 19-inch-diameter oak and build a single-family residence on a 1.26-acre parcel that had been carved from a larger tract. Freeman said he needed either an 11-foot variance on the east side or a 26-foot variance if the north side were treated as the front, and that conflicting guidance from staff about which side constituted the —front— had forced costly redesigns.

County planning staff responded that the "front" of the lot is the location of the legal access easement and that the lot was platted with a 50-foot access easement; under that interpretation, front and rear setbacks must be 50 feet and sides 18 feet. Staff said a tree placed near the proposed structure would normally require a 19-foot protection zone and that the applicant had not shown the extraordinary and exceptional conditions required for a variance. Staff suggested options including moving the house, reconfiguring lot lines (which would require resurveying) or submitting an arborist report proving the tree could survive construction.

Freeman said he had spent significant money on architectural revisions to accommodate earlier guidance and that resurveying adjoining properties would be expensive. He said he preferred to preserve the oak: "We wanna have an oak tree in our backyard." Board members debated a 10% modulation (10 feet) that staff said could be handled administratively versus a larger variance requiring board action; they also discussed whether rotating or shifting the house could avoid cutting the tree.

After discussion the board placed a motion to grant the variance, which was seconded and then put to a vote; the Chair announced the application was denied. Staff and board members cited lack of demonstrated hardship, the lot's approved platting and code setbacks as reasons for denial.