Board denies variance request to park trailer in front yard at 6644 Garber Road

The Clayton Board of Zoning Appeals on July 1 voted to disapprove a variance application from Tim Philpott seeking permission to park a utility trailer forward of the principal residence at 6644 Garber Road.

Staff presented the application and recommended denial, saying the Clayton planning and zoning code (cited in the staff report as section 1121.03 f and the variance standard section 1141.07) prohibits trailer storage forward of the principal structure except for brief loading or unloading and that no unique hardship was shown. Miss Snyder, city planning staff, told the board the code requires trailers stored outside a garage to be “parked no closer to the street than the nearest foundation line of the residence” and on a hard, dustless surface; she said the applicant had been advised of two alternatives: pursue a legislative amendment through city council and planning commission or file an administrative appeal.

Tim Philpott, the property owner, told the board the trailer had been parked in the location for 38 months before enforcement and described his lot as long, narrow and wooded, with limited access to the rear yard. Philpott said the trailer is used as a tool for yard work and moving and described the location as shielded from view much of the year. “For 38 months that trailer was parked with no citing,” Philpott said; he also expressed frustration with enforcement timing and described prior compliance followed by subsequent citations.

Board members discussed whether the property’s layout constituted a practical difficulty. Staff advised that the request appeared to be a disagreement with the code’s policy, not a variance-eligible hardship. The board’s findings of fact were read aloud against the variance criteria: members concluded that the application did not meet the legal standard that a variance be the minimum necessary relief for an exceptional condition not created by the applicant and that granting it would not be in harmony with the intent of the code. A motion to disapprove VAR25-04 carried on roll-call vote: McGinnis, Caldwell, Madewell, Perrin and Greer voted yes.

The board advised Philpott to work with city council and staff if he seeks a text amendment or continued advocacy; no changes to the code were made by the board. The denial leaves the enforcement status of the property unchanged; staff will continue to enforce the existing code provisions unless council or planning commission adopt a code amendment.