TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon, Senior Planner
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: November 12, 2025
RE:Title
A25-49: Variance (UDO §30-3.D.3) to reduce the required 35-ft. rear yard setback by 16.12 ft. (to 18.88 ft.) for a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct. (PIN 0427173607000), zoned SF-10; owners: Kenneth B. Lewis, Jr. & Molly E. Lewis; agent: Michael Adams (MAPS Surveying, Inc.).
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
5 - Council Member Lynne Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2025
Goal III - City Investment Planning (Growth Management, Development Services)
Approving or denying variances through a consistent, criteria-based process is integral to how the City manages future growth and strategic land use. This process also helps sustain a favorable development and business climate by ensuring timely and accurate construction reviews and building inspections. The City monitors plan review timeliness and inspections as key performance indicators under Goal III; ensuring that case A25-49 is handled within these benchmarks supports this objective, regardless of the outcome.
The Low-Density Residential (LDR) designation promotes low-intensity residential reinvestment. The Future Land Use Plan explicitly connects to Goal III and aims to create “safe, stable, and attractive neighborhoods.” This overarching goal serves as the framework for evaluating a small accessory expansion against the Unified Development Ordinance’s (UDO) variance criteria, which include minimum action, harmony with intent, and public safety and welfare. A well-placed garage addition can align with the goal of neighborhood stability if it meets these standards.
Goal IV - Live, Work, & Recreate (Neighborhood Quality, Housing Stability)
Goal IV focuses on ensuring that people have a place to live in vibrant neighborhoods and improving the overall quality of life in these areas. Small-scale, owner-driven improvements to existing housing, such as adding a code-compliant garage, typically support these objectives when they are designed to fit the lot and its context. Given that this site is located in a Low-Density Residential (LDR) zone and is adjacent to or near parks and open spaces, careful placement of structures will help preserve the residential character. This approach will also maintain access, provide adequate screening, and ensure proper drainage - all of which align with the quality-of-life goals outlined in Goal IV.
Goal VI - Collaborative Government (Transparent Process, Outreach)
This case adhered to the necessary public notice requirements, including sending letters to property owners within 300 feet and providing clear mapping. This transparency and outreach align directly with Goal VI’s emphasis on building trust, fostering communication, and engaging collaboratively with residents and stakeholders. Documented notices and clearly presented case materials reinforce the ideals of Goal VI.
Goal V - Financially Sound City (Cost Recovery, Service Delivery)
The adopted fee schedule for Planning recovers the costs associated with staff time for quasi-judicial hearings and reviews. The records indicate that the $1,000 variance fee was fully paid for application A25-49. This supports Goal V’s focus on aligning resources with City priorities and upholding strong financial management for service delivery. Additionally, there is no identified new operation and maintenance burden on the City from this single-lot request.
Goal II - Diverse & Viable Economy (Development Climate, Tax Base)
While the direct economic impact may be small, allowing compliant reinvestment in the existing housing stock incrementally contributes to neighborhood value and stability. These factors are tracked in the Strategic Plan under Goal II, which focuses on development climate, satisfaction with quality of life, and growth in the tax base. Variance outcomes that align with established policy and standards help maintain predictability, which is an essential aspect of a favorable development climate.
Goal I - Safety & Security (Built-Environment Safety)
The public safety outcomes of Goal I are indirectly advanced by routing the project through a permit review process, which ensures compliance with fire separation, access, electrical, and structural standards. Additionally, maintaining sufficient rear-yard spacing preserves emergency access and minimizes potential conflicts between structures. This is one of the key reasons why setback standards are established.
Relationship to the Future Land Use Plan (Policy Bridge to the Strategic Plan)
The Future Land Use Plan directly supports the Strategic Plan, particularly Goal III. It aims to “foster safe, stable, and attractive neighborhoods” while also preserving environmental features through open-space protection. Any reduction in setbacks should be the minimum necessary to protect adjacent lots. If this is accomplished, it aligns with the Future Land Use Plan’s goal of neighborhood stability, all while ensuring that buffers, drainage, and tree canopy are preserved where applicable.
Net Assessment
Verified: This is a single-family lot in the SF-10 zoning district. The variance requested seeks a 16.12-foot reduction in setback to allow for the addition of a garage. The site is located in a Low-Density Residential (LDR) area near a park and open space dedicated area. The necessary notification has been completed, and the fee has been paid.
Speculative: Considerations include the level of neighborhood support or concern, potential impacts on appraisals and taxes, details regarding the exact design and materials to be used for the building, and plans for long term maintenance.
Bottom Line: The proposal (A25-49) represents a small-scale reinvestment by a homeowner. In terms of the approval process, it advance Goal III (growth management and service delivery), Goal VI (transparent engagement), and Goal V (cost recovery). Substantively, if the Board determines that the proposal meets the criteria of “minimum action,” aligns with the intent of the regulations, and serves the public welfare, it will be in harmony with Goal IV’s objectives for neighborhood quality and will be consistent with the LDR framework outlined in the Future Land Use Plan (FLUP).
Executive Summary:
The application A25-49 is a homeowner-initiated variance request to allow for a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct. (PIN 0427173607000). This request seeks to reduce the rear setback from 35 feet to 18.88 feet, which is a relief of 16.12 feet, on a Single Family 10 (SF-10) lot. The application references UDO §30-3.D.3 and includes details about the request, the address, and the surrounding SF-10 context, which consists of single-family homes to the east, south, and west, and vacant land to the north.
The stated hardship for this request is a sudden increase in household size and the current placement of the existing house. These factors together limit feasible options for siting the garage, making the proposed encroachment the minimal action necessary for reasonable use. The owners, Kenneth and Molly Lewis, are represented by Michael Adams from MAPS Surveying. A standard 300-foot mailed notice was prepared, and the site is designated as Low-Density Residential, with nearby Park/Open Space, indicating a stable residential environment conducive to small-scale reinvestment.
Background:
Owners: Kenneth B. Lewis, Jr. & Molly Elliot Lewis (C&M Lewis Revocable Trust)
Applicant: Michael Adams, MAPS Surveying, Inc., on behalf of the owners
Requested Action: Variance from UDO §30-3.D.3 to reduce the rear yard setback by 16.12 feet (35 feet required) to allow a garage addition to an existing single-family home
Zoning District: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential 10
Property Address: 304 White Oak Ct. (PIN 0427173607000)
Size: 0.73 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single-family residential (garage addition proposed)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: SF-10 - Vacant Parcel
• South: SF-10 - Single-family residential
• East: SF-10 - Single-family residential
• West: SF-10 - Single-family residential
Letters Mailed: Notices sent to all owners within a 300-ft. buffer of the subject parcel (29 addresses on the culled mailing list).
Issues/Analysis:
This request deviates from the SF-10 base dimensional standards for rear setbacks. In the SF-10 zoning district, the minimum rear yard setback is 35 feet, which can be reduced to 20 feet only if the corner side setback is 30 feet or greater. The district also imposes a maximum lot coverage limit of 30% and adheres to other regulations outlined in section 30-3.D.3 (Single-Family Residential 10).
The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a garage addition within the rear yard, which would reduce the rear setback by 16.12 feet (from 35 feet to 18.88 feet) at the property located at 304 White Oak Court (PIN 0427173607000). This property is zoned SF-10 and is used as a single-family residence. The application explicitly requests “a rear yard setback variance of 16.12 feet” from the standard 35-foot requirement, citing the orientation of the existing house and the need to position the garage as indicated on the plot plan.
City case materials confirm the request type as a variance for the minimum yard/setback and provide the relevant location details. They also include the mailing notice mapping and the zoning context, which features both SF-10 and neighboring SF-15 zones.
In SF-10 zoning, the principal building must have a rear setback of at least 35 feet or more. The rear setback can be reduced to 20 feet when the corner-sider setback is 30 feet or more. Additionally, there is a maximum lot coverage of 30%, along with other dimensional controls that apply to single-family detached dwellings. It is important to note that specific regulations for accessory structures, such as size and additional setbacks for structures with footprints greater than 700 square feet, come into play when the structure is classified as an accessory rather than part of the principal building.
The submittal requests a reduction of 16.12 feet to the required rear yard for a garage addition. It cites the existing placement of the dwelling on the lot and argues that the proposed location minimizes nonconformity while meeting the needs of the household. The narrative states that the only “sensible” location for the garage, given the current position of the building, is as indicated in the plan set. Staff has verified that the lot coverage and height limits comply with the standards.
The only point of divergence is the rear yard depth: 18.88 feet proposed versus 35 feet required in SF-10 (there is no evidence that the corner-lot 20-foot exception applies).
The parcel is located in an established single-family neighborhood designated SF-10. The surrounding lots are also single-family homes, and there is a vacant parcel to the north, as indicated in the application. City notices and context maps confirm the single-family character of the area. The request is being processed as a variance under UDO §30-2.C.14. The application form outlines the six approval standards that must be met: practical difficulties, land-related uniqueness, minimum action, harmony and spirit, public safety, and substantial justice.
The Future Land Use Map designates the subject area as Low-Density Residential (LDR). Nearby, there is a Park/Open Space designation, which aligns with the low-intensity residential character and open-space framework of the neighborhood. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and plan aim to guide decisions that create safe, stable, and attractive neighborhoods (Goal #4), preserve environmental features (Goal #5), and manage growth through clear and consistently applied standards (implementation Strategy #1).
At the policy level (Section 3), LU-6 emphasizes the importance of quality neighborhood design, ensuring compliance with standards for streets, sidewalks, stormwater management, and open spaces. LU-7 supports a mix of housing types and appropriate justice is served if similarly, situated properties are treated consistently based on specific land constraints rather than individual preferences, in accordance with the variance standards outlined in the application.
Any approval granted is limited to the specific deviation and exhibits outlined in the decision. All other provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) still apply, and any future modifications outside the scope of the variance must comply with the UDO in effect at that time or seek separate approval. It is important to note that building and trade permits are required even after a variance has been granted. The staff has confirmed that all SF-10 dimensional and coverall limits, including applicable notes regarding accessory structures, are being adhered to.
Case setup, fees, and notifications are documented in the project file. The fee ledger indicates the variance request (A25-49) with payment received. Additionally, the aerial, zoning, and FLUM exhibits in the packet illustrate the site’s context for the Board’s evidentiary review.
Budget Impact:
There is no material fiscal impact to the City from A25-49. The applicant has already paid the $1,000 variance fee, which covers the routine staff review and most noticing/processing costs (with a remaining balance of 0$ due). Standard neighbor notification is required within 300 feet and has been sent out; any costs for postage and printing are nominal and part of the normal operations for variance cases. A rear-yard setback variance in SF-10 does not trigger ay City capital outlay, infrastructure extension, or new service obligations (the base rear setback standard is 35 feet). If granted, the garage addition will proceed through standard permits at the applicant’s expense; any change in assessed value would result in only minimal positive property tax revenue. The applicant is responsible for recording the variance with the Register of Deeds within 30 days, which does not incur any costs for the City. Overall, the budget impact is neutral to trivially positive (fee-supported).
Options:
The Board may approve, deny, or approve with conditions. Its decision must rely solely on the record and the five required findings of fact. Approval is appropriate only if competent, material, and substantial evidence supports each finding. If any single finding is not supported, the correct action is denial.
A member who believes the evidence satisfies all findings may move to approve and should briefly recap the evidence for each finding. If one or more findings are not met, a motion to deny should identify the specific finding(s) and explain why, with citation to the record.
When granting approval, the Board may attach reasonable, related, evidence-based conditions to ensure the findings are met. Deliberations should focus on concise discussion tied to each required finding.
Case A25-49 - Possible Motions and Required Findings
(Rear-yard setback variance for a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct., PIN 0427173607000; SF-10 zoning with a 35-ft. rear setback standard. Requested reduction: 16.12 ft. - proposed rear setback 18.88 ft.)
Motion to Approve (as requested)
Motion: Approve a variance to reduce the required SF-10 rear yard setback in UDO §30-3.D.3 from 35 feet to 18.88 feet (a 16.12-foot variance) to allow a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct., as depicted on the submitted site plan in the record.
Findings of Fact required for approval (all five must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence):
1. Practical difficulties / unnecessary hardships: Strict application would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, shown by:
2. Unique land-related circumstances / not self-created: Any hardship stems from unique, land-related circumstances and not the applicant’s actions, shown by:
3. Minimum action: This is the least modification necessary to enable a reasonable use, shown by:
4. Harmony with the Ordinance; spirit preserved: The variance is in harmony with the UDO’s purpose and preserves its spirit, shown by:
5. Public safety, welfare, and substantial justice: Granting assures public safety and welfare and achieves substantial justice, shown by:
Motion to Approve with Conditions
Motion: Approve the variance to reduce the SF-10 rear yard setback from 35 feet to 18.88 feet for a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct., with the following conditions tied to the exhibits and findings:
Findings of Fact for conditional approval (all five must be supported):
1. Practical difficulties / unnecessary hardships (as conditioned):
2. Unique land-related circumstances / not self-created (as conditioned):
3. Minimum action (as conditioned):
4. Harmony with the Ordinance; spirit preserved (as conditioned):
5. Public safety, welfare, and substantial justice (as conditioned):
Example conditions (tailor to the record):
1. Location & setback floor: The garage shall be constructed substantially as shown on the submitted site plan; the rear setback shall be no less than 18.88 feet at any point. Any relocation requires new approval.
2. Lot coverage compliance: Total building coverage shall remain at or below the SF-10 30% lot coverage maximum; zoning review shall verify at permitting stage.
3. Drainage control: Roof runoff from the addition shall be directed on-site (gutters/downspouts/splash blocks or equivalent) so as not to discharge onto adjacent lots or rights-of-way; no grading into adjoining properties.
4. Code/permit conformance: The project must comply with all applicable codes and obtain required permits; staff shall verify conformance with the approved exhibits and these conditions at permit and inspection.
Motion to Deny
Motion: Deny the variance to reduce the SF-10 rear yard setback for a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct.
Findings statements supporting denial (identify which findings are not met and why):
1. Insufficient evidence that strict application causes practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, because:
2. Insufficient evidence that any hardship arises from unique land-related circumstances rather than the applicant’s actions, because:
3. Insufficient evidence that the request is the minimum action necessary to allow reasonable use, because:
4. Insufficient evidence that the request is in harmony with the Ordinance and preserves its spirit, because:
5. Insufficient evidence that public safety and welfare are assured and that substantial justice would be done, because:
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Because A25-49 is a quasi-judicial variance, staff does not recommend approval or denial. The Board must base its decision solely on competent, material, and substantial evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. Due-process requirements prohibit staff from advocating either way.
For A25-49 (rear-yard setback variance for a garage addition at 304 White Oak Ct.; SF-10, 35-ft. rear setback requested to be reduced to 18.88 ft.), staff’s role is to:
• Assemble and organize the record (application, site plan, notices/affidavits, and other exhibits);
• Identify the applicable UDO provisions and the five required findings;
• Present relevant facts and exhibits without advocacy; and
• Where appropriate, outline conditions that are legally tied to the evidence (e.g., tying construction to the submitted plan/setback, confirming lot-coverage compliance, addressing drainage, and standard permit/code requirements).
The burden of proof remains with the applicant. The Board - not staff - must make the findings and the final determination.
end
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Plot Plan