Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Board of Adjustments denies ADU variances for 6511 Bryce Canyon Drive
Summary
The Central Board of Adjustments denied two variance requests for 6511 Bryce Canyon Drive — to allow an accessory dwelling in the front yard and to increase ADU size from 1,000 to 1,800 square feet — citing insufficient information and neighborhood concerns.
The Central Board of Adjustments denied requests to allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the front yard and to expand the permitted ADU size to 1,800 square feet for a property at 6511 Bryce Canyon Drive in the Colby Hill subdivision.
The board split the application into two motions after extensive public comment and discussion about site location, neighborhood deed restrictions, topography and drainage. Board members said they lacked sufficient information and were concerned about precedence in the subdivision.
"There is no building going in front of that house on Bryce Canyon. That is not happening," said Gary Patterson, the applicant’s agent, explaining the proposed placement of a cottage-style mother-in-law unit and saying the occupant has Parkinson’s disease. Patterson said the structure would sit more than 100 feet from the street and described topographical challenges at the rear of the lot.
Neighbors urged denial and asked for clearer site documentation. Paul Bartel, a Colby Hill resident, cited the subdivision’s recorded restrictions and read requirements including that "no building shall be erected or altered, replaced or permitted other than one detached single-family dwelling" and that mother-in-law quarters be a maximum of 700 square feet and attached to the principal residence.
Charles Williams, a nearby resident, urged the board to deny the request and said an 1,800-square-foot structure "is way larger than what is permitted" and could set an undesirable precedent. Chris Dupuy, whose property backs the site, raised concerns about drainage and asked whether the lot is served by city sewer or septic; the applicant later said the property is served by city sewer and would be required to comply with city sewer rules.
After discussion, the board voted to deny the front-yard setback variance and then denied the size variance, with motions citing lack of demonstrated hardship and insufficient site documentation. Board members advised the applicant to submit clearer site plans and documentation if they seek future consideration.
