Board bends zoning rule for good intentions


The Henderson Zoning Board of Adjustment sliced through the red tape Tuesday and granted a variance to a property owner who ran into trouble after getting a building permit.

Bruce Stainback’s case was the only issue on the board’s April agenda, and although it didn’t take long, it showed how the best intentions can lead you astray in the world of conforming uses, permits and setbacks.

Stainback’s problem was an insufficient setback, the distance from the property line to a new roof he built above a porch on the rental home he owns at 939 S. William St. For a corner lot in the R-8 residential district, there should be 15 feet from the side of the property to the building. The edge of the porch roof is only 11 feet into the yard.

Stainback, who lives on the same block at 931 S. William St., said he has owned the rental home for about 25 years, and he put the porch on the house 18 years ago. He also owns both of the properties adjacent to 939 S. William St., so his porch roof isn’t bothering any neighbors.

During the required public hearing on his variance request, Stainback testified that he added the roof to make the porch nicer for his tenant and to keep rain water from running under the house. “The past few weeks,” he said, “with all this rain we’ve had, it sure has done a good job.”

Stainback said he does his own work on his rental houses, but he’s not a contractor. He mistakenly violated the zoning ordinance, he said, and “I apologize.”

Planning Director Grace Smith said the roof triggered the zoning ordinance, which didn’t exist when the house was built. Whenever a new roof goes up, a zoning permit is necessary.

Unfortunately, a county building inspector who spotted Stainback starting his roof forgot about the zoning permit. Zoning administrator Brownell Wright said the inspector issued the required building permit, Stainback built his roof, then the inspector realized that zoning might be a problem.

Smith said such oversights are rare and usually occur after a time of turnover in the county building inspector’s officer.

No one objected to the zoning variance for Stainback, who drew sympathy from the zoning board for trying to follow the rules while acting to enhance the value of his property.

Given the choice of granting the variance or forcing Stainback to remove at least 4 feet of the roof, the board’s city members unanimously approved the variance.