Board postpones decision on after‑the‑fact garage variance at 511 Bombard Avenue after neighbor objections

The Webster Groves Board of Adjustment closed the public hearing and postponed final action to its May 8 meeting on an after‑the‑fact variance request for 511 Bombard Avenue after neighbors raised objections and staff confirmed a stop‑work order had been issued.

Planning director Elliot Leibson told the board the applicant, John Orby, built a foundation for an accessory garage located in front of the primary structure and within the code’s required front and 60‑foot accessory setbacks. "They're requesting a 37 foot setback," Leibson said, describing the built foundation; the staff analysis showed the city’s rule requires accessory structures be at least 60 feet from the front lot line, meaning the request represents about a 23‑foot reduction from that requirement.

Contractor Scott Woods acknowledged the foundation was built in the wrong location and apologized. "It was a mistake," Woods told the board, adding his crew had miscommunicated and that he had since taken steps to improve on‑site layout supervision. Woods said the crew found the originally proposed placement difficult given grades and turning‑radius concerns and moved the foundation on site without completing the variance process.

Neighbors who testified said they opposed allowing the foundation to remain as built. Anne Kelly of 503 North Bombard Park said she and other neighbors had been surprised and upset by the foundation’s location and that the change would obstruct views and alter the street’s character. "I was shocked and saddened when I saw the foundation as laid," Kelly said on the record, and she told the board she had submitted a written objection.

Leibson said the city conducted rough inspections of the foundation in February and discovered the foundation did not match the approved plan; a stop‑work order followed. Staff confirmed the originally proposed garage location would not have required variances but that the constructed foundation sits forward of the approved footprint and within the required accessory setback.

After public testimony the board voted to close the hearing and postpone final action to its next meeting on May 8 so a full five‑member board could consider the matter. The board indicated the postponed decision would use the current hearing record unless the board votes to reopen the hearing.

Why it matters: The case raises questions about permit‑to‑construction sequencing, inspection oversight and how the Board treats after‑the‑fact requests when a foundation has been poured in a location that differs from the approved plan. The board’s postponement gives a full panel an opportunity to review the stop‑work timeline, neighbors’ statements and potential remediation options.

Next steps: The board will consider the variance and any additional evidence or conditions at the May 8 meeting. The city noted that, absent a variance, the foundation would need to be removed or altered to meet code.