Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies setback variance for detached garage at 101 Mason Avenue
Summary
The Board of Adjustment rejected a request to build a detached garage with a 5-foot-11.5-inch side-yard setback at 101 Mason Avenue, finding applicants had reasonable alternatives and no unusual land-based hardship was shown.
The Webster Groves Board of Adjustment on Thursday denied a variance request that would have allowed a detached garage at 101 Mason Avenue to sit 5 feet, 11.5 inches from the side property line instead of meeting the 12-foot setback required for taller accessory structures.
Architect Michael Killeen and the property owners sought the variance to keep a gabled roof form consistent with the home's architecture; the proposed garage is 672 square feet with a ridge height that triggers the larger 12-foot setback. "We're trying to replicate that beautiful roof that he put on that original home," Killeen said, referencing the existing house's design, and added that a flat roof would comply with the setback requirement but would not match the home.
Planning staff explained the code treats taller accessory buildings differently: structures 12 feet or taller from grade to ridge must meet a larger side setback (12 feet); accessory buildings below that height may meet smaller setbacks (five feet). Staff said the lot is a preexisting, smaller-than-standard A1 parcel and that no prior variances exist.
Board members asked whether the garage could be shifted toward the center of the lot or the ridge lowered by two feet so the structure would not trigger the larger setback; staff and the architect confirmed those were technically feasible alternatives. The board repeatedly sought a land-based hardship (topography, shape or other constraint) that would justify a setback variance and found none demonstrated.
After discussion the board voted 5-0 to deny the variance. Members said the owners had options that would achieve the owner's goals without granting a setback exception.
What happens next: Staff noted the project could return with design changes that comply with setback requirements or pursue an alternative accessory structure design that meets the code. Any subsequent work will require the usual ARB/permit review where applicable.
