One discussion unfolded around a contentious variance appeal concerning property on Shady Lane. This case revolved around accessory structures left on a lot after the removal of a primary mobile home, leading to code violations due to the absence of a principal structure. The property owners, who purchased the lot in 2020, faced challenges with county regulations, necessitating either the removal of the accessory structures or the establishment of a primary use. Discussions with the applicants’ representative, Mr. Jones, explored options such as converting the existing garage into a single-family home, although its location didn’t meet setback requirements.

During the meeting, a board member disclosed a personal relationship with the landowners and abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. The board queried Deputy County Attorney NAA Borker, who clarified that accessory structures cannot legally exist without a primary structure, a violation affirmed by a special magistrate. This raised concerns about whether considering variances without resolving the illegal use would effectively legitimize these structures, which Borker confirmed was the county’s stance.

The deliberations also addressed the applicants’ financial challenges in complying with the county’s conversion requirements, given the property’s floodplain designation. Jones, arguing for the property owners, emphasized that the lot split was not illegal and that the garage had been recognized as a legal structure by the county when a roofing permit was approved in 2022. Jones further pointed out that the code enforcement issues stemmed from neighbor disputes, not the legality of the lot split itself, and argued that the county’s requirements for conversion were financially burdensome.

The board explored the feasibility of considering the variance contingent on rectifying the illegal use, emphasizing the necessity for a building permit for converting the garage. They were informed that they had the authority to overturn the planning manager’s decision, potentially allowing the variance application process to proceed. The conversation highlighted the broader issue of how variance requests intersect with county regulations and community standards.

Following this, another discussion centered on a variance request concerning Dr. Yasser Muses’ property on Kingston Road, which involved unpermitted accessory structures. Dr. Muses aimed to bring these structures into compliance by adjusting setback requirements: reducing the rear yard setback for a detached gym and the side yard setback for a storage container. A previous request had been denied, but Dr. Muses proposed adjustments to address neighbor concerns and mitigate visibility issues by introducing vegetation as a visual barrier.

Board members scrutinized the special conditions warranting the variance request, questioning whether the property’s structural limitations justified deviations from standard regulations. Dr. Muses admitted a lack of knowledge about zoning regulations at the time of construction, relying on assurances from a hired company that permits were unnecessary. The board underscored the importance of understanding property rules before construction, but Dr. Muses’ efforts to address neighbor concerns were acknowledged. Neighbor Lawrence Bernstein supported the variance, arguing against the demolition of long-standing structures.

The board also reviewed additional variance requests, including a setback variance for a garage addition and detached workshop on Long Pond Drive. The applicant, represented by Guy Cornell, cited a misunderstanding of setback requirements due to recent changes, which informed the homeowner of a different setback when the property was purchased. Cornell argued for the necessity of the variances to accommodate a three-car garage, emphasizing minimal impact on neighboring properties.