Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms staff: Donegal Cliffs playhouse/structure not permitted without proof of prior approval
Summary
The board declined to grant the Boroffs' appeal challenging staff's finding that a playhouse-like structure in Donegal Cliffs is not a permitted accessory structure under the development text; members said the record lacked proof the structure was previously permitted and the development text narrowly allows only certain wooden playground equipment as exceptions.
The Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed staff's determination that an accessory/play structure at 4967 Galway Drive in Donegal Cliffs is not permitted under the neighborhood's development text, because the record did not show prior approval and because staff judged the structure to resemble a prohibited accessory building (a shed) rather than a permitted wooden playground or swing set.
Appellants Shane Boroff and Samantha Scarpetti told the board the structure replaced an older clubhouse and is used as a children's playhouse; they argued staff applied the wrong standard by calling the packaging a shed and not investigating the actual use. "We would respectfully submit that this appeal does not turn on that issue," Boroff said, asking the board to consider whether the decision applied the proper requirements and standards. The law director and planning staff noted the Donegal Cliffs development text specifically permits "in-ground pools and wooden playground equipment/swing sets" and otherwise prohibits accessory structures in that development. Because the appellants did not present documentary evidence that a previously permitted structure existed or that the structure predated the 2001 development text, the board voted to deny the appeal.
Board members debated whether the structure's use for child recreation might place it within an accessory use category even if the physical structure resembles a shed, but ultimately members concluded the code and the record limited them to denying the appeal. The board did not remand the matter for additional evidence at this time.
