Board of Adjustment approves setback variance for proposed Littleton mountain home

The Jefferson County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to approve a variance allowing reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single‑family home at 13880 North Trail Circle in Littleton.

Alexander Folkes, the county case manager for the application, told the board staff found an “exceptional practical difficulty and undue hardship” tied to the parcel’s shape and steep slopes and recommended approval “subject to the conditions set in the staff report.”

The applicant, Darren Strauss, said the variance is needed to build what he described as his family’s future home on a roughly 40.81‑acre property he bought seven or eight years earlier. “I appreciate the information that Alex just provided and [I’m] seeking approval here so that we can build our dream home up on the mountain property,” Strauss told the board.

Neighbors testifying at the public hearing opposed the request. Connor Hanley, who gave his address as 13904 North Trail Circle, told the board he and other neighbors have encountered vehicles and guests on Strauss’s land and said they were concerned the property could be used as a short‑term rental. “We are concerned that the property being built is going to be utilized as a vacation rental or a Airbnb rental,” Hanley said. James Chambers, a neighbor to the north, raised wildfire concerns and said meeting setback standards had constrained where he could build on his own lot.

Design consultant David Milburn described constraints created by steep slopes and said the site contains large areas with slopes over 30 percent. Milburn told the board the project team had located a hammerhead turn for emergency access and said the proposed southern deck would be about 10 feet deep and covered. He said removing that deck would increase the south setback to about 19 feet, but that moving the house materially north or east would place the structure on steeper ground that the fire marshal deemed inaccessible.

Board members discussed the size of the requested reduction — a 33‑foot front setback where 50 feet is required, and a 10‑foot rear setback where 50 feet is required — and the visual and safety tradeoffs in a mountain neighborhood. Several members said they were persuaded by the lot’s narrow developable area and the fire‑access constraints; one member suggested removing the southern deck as a possible condition to increase separation.

The board adopted a resolution finding the applicant had established practical difficulty and undue hardship and that the relief would not substantially detract from the public good or the intent of the zoning resolution. The motion to approve the variance carried on a roll call vote with all board members voting aye.

The board referred the applicant to the planner for next steps on the building permit process and final inspections, including any required cistern location and fire access approvals that will be resolved as part of grading and building permits.

The decision does not change any county or state permitting checks that will be required later in the building permit sequence.