In a recent city council meeting, members deliberated on a variance request concerning an existing structure on Gray Fox Drive. The council faced a recommendation from city staff to deny the variance due to findings related to the property’s size, topography, and design. However, city manager insights revealed that the city had previously overlooked critical aspects of the case, leading to a significant hardship for the property owner.

The city manager emphasized that the oversight created a situation akin to laying tracks for a train only to decide later to remove them. He urged the council to consider the hardship imposed on the property owner, which could result in over $16,000 in additional costs if the variance were denied. He recommended that the council approve the variance to alleviate the ongoing issues stemming from the city’s earlier mistake.

During the discussion, council members raised questions about similar variances in the area, noting that other properties had received approvals despite encroachments. One council member remarked on the minor visual impact of the structure in question, suggesting that it did not significantly violate zoning codes.

After a public hearing, where no opponents to the variance were present, the council moved to vote. A motion was made and seconded to approve the variance, allowing the existing addition to remain within approximately three feet of the side yard property line. The motion passed unanimously with a 5-0 vote, enabling the property owner to proceed without incurring substantial additional costs.