Local zoning board approves special exception for Cosby Street lot split with reduced setback

The local zoning board approved Case SE-18-26 on a motion to grant a special exception allowing a lot split and reduced side-yard setbacks at a property on Cosby Street.

At the meeting the chair explained that the application from Sean Terry requests "approximately a 600 foot lot size reduction and a 5 foot side yard reduction on both lots" to split a single large parcel and convert the existing structure into a duplex while keeping the same footprint. Applicant Sean Terry told the board he bought a former commercial building three years ago and wants to "strictly [go] inside the existing structure to make that into a duplex." The applicant said the parcel has a long history of commercial use and that the intention is to retain existing structures while creating two lots.

Board members questioned exactly where the new lot line would run and how close the garage and house are to one another. The record shows the applicant and staff described separations of roughly "5 to 6 feet" in places and said some roof overlap had been removed after conversations with the insurance carrier. One member raised fire-safety concerns, saying the proximity would mean "3 families" could be affected in a worst-case fire scenario; staff replied that "typically, a fire code distance is 10 foot" but a two-hour-rated firewall can be used to achieve required separation under state code.

To reduce future uncertainty, the board added conditions before approving the exception: require a recorded plat of survey, legal description and deed documents showing the two parcels; require compliance with all state and local building and fire codes; and set the side-yard setback at 5 feet except at the near corner (the southeast corner of the house/northwest corner of the garage), where the board set a 2.5-foot setback to be used for recordation and easement purposes. The chair moved to add those stipulations; the motion was seconded and the board voted to approve. The clerk called the roll and several members voted yes; two members were recorded absent.

The applicant said he will have his surveyor prepare the plat and return the documents to the planning office for recordation. The board’s approval was contingent on the filing and the applicant’s compliance with the stipulated building and fire-code requirements.