Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies multiple setback variances for Philadelphia Road property; applicant cited contractor error and lawsuit
Summary
Joshua Gallifrey told the zoning appeals board that an unpermitted contractor built a pole barn without permits and the owner faces a lawsuit; staff recommended denial of variances and the board voted to deny case 4420 after debate over technical fixes and insufficient demonstrated hardship.
The Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a set of setback and separation variances requested for a property at 205 Philadelphia Road (case 4420), after staff recommended denial and the board discussed whether an engineering fix or deferral would change the outcome.
Applicant Joshua Gallifrey (speaker 3) told the board an unpermitted contractor built a pole barn and the owners are now involved in litigation; the partially built structure represents about $68,000 in sunk costs, Gallifrey said. He asked the board to consider variances for a pole barn that was built very close to the side property line, a separation variance between structures and two variances for smaller accessory buildings.
Staff told the board the lot was created in 1997 and is not an older tract of record; staff therefore could not recommend approval. Gallifrey said his engineer produced a report outlining potential fixes and that neighbors closest to the pole barn had supplied a letter indicating they were not adversely affected.
Board members extensively discussed technical remedies, including whether attaching an awning or roof to the house would change the setback/separation calculations; staff pointed out that attaching structures changes the required principal-structure setback and in the applicant's situation could make the side-yard problem worse. Several board members expressed frustration about the unpermitted construction and the applicant’s reliance on a contractor; one member suggested the applicant’s remedy is a civil suit against the contractor.
Given the degree of noncompliance (the structure sits inches from the property line) and unanswered questions about the final plan, one board member moved to deny the variances based on staff recommendation. The motion passed.
The board discussed the option to defer to allow submission of the engineer's report and additional plans, but ultimately found denial appropriate under the ordinance unless the applicant purchases additional adjacent property or otherwise alters the situation.
