Boulder County Board of Adjustment denies Cherry Veil Road carport setback variance

Boulder County, Feb. 2025 — The Boulder County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny a setback-variance request for a proposed carport at 983 Cherry Veil Road, concluding the applicants did not demonstrate the exceptional physical circumstances or undue hardship required under county code.

County staff had recommended denial of docket VAR-24-0007 after finding the application failed to meet the variance criteria in Article 4.12.02.B.2. Pete LaRonde, Community Planning and Permitting staff, told the board the parcel is 0.39 acres with a 1,637-square-foot residence and that, while the lot is small, staff found “sufficient area to develop outside of the supplemental setbacks.” Staff therefore concluded the first three criteria for a variance were not met; staff did find the application met the tests that the change would not affect adjacent uses, the character of the zone, or public health and safety.

The applicants, owners Manish Kaur and Cheryl Yuntinen, asked the board for a reduction of the 90-foot supplemental front setback to roughly 43 feet 8 inches to build a carport adjoining the house. Kaur described household circumstances and site constraints during the public hearing: “My wife is receiving chemotherapy and, during a recent snowstorm, it took more than half an hour for her and her mother to get out of the driveway,” Kaur said. He told the board the parcel’s side yard is too narrow for a functional access route to a backyard carport, and that large, long-standing trees and a steep grade between the house and backyard make a rear option impractical.

Contractor Joshua Brooks, speaking virtually, said he and the applicants had examined alternative layouts and found none feasible. “I had went over to Manish’s property and we had studied every single possibility that we could as far as another place to put the carport and it’s just not feasible,” Brooks said. He added that he has built in Colorado for about 30 years and supports the proposed location.

Board members questioned those claims and reviewed mapping and referral materials. Kent Campbell and other members asked about whether a single-car cover could be fitted along the house’s north side near an existing shed; staff responded that the supplemental setback extends past the shed location and that, even without the shed, the site narrows and large trees would be affected. The applicant and contractor also raised flooding and high soil moisture as constraints for rear-yard construction; staff pulled up the county’s official floodplain and geologic-hazards maps during the hearing and said the parcel itself did not appear inside the county’s 500-year or 100-year floodplain on the current mapping, and that very-high swelling-soil potential was mapped east of the parcel but did not clearly include the subject lot.

In discussion the board members said they were sympathetic to the applicants’ circumstances but agreed the legal standard for a variance requires proof of exceptional physical circumstances or undue hardship. “There’s no right to a carport,” Board Member David Marlette said. “You move to this house without one,” he added, noting alternatives such as negotiating with neighbors, relocating a driveway, or removing trees. Scott Rudge said the application lacked the factual data needed to overcome staff’s finding: “If the backyard is truly unsuitable because of grade or an immovable condition, give us that data,” he said; absent that, Rudge added, the criteria were not met.

Scott Rudge moved to deny the variance in accordance with staff recommendation; the motion was seconded and carried on a roll-call vote with David Marlette, Scott Rudge, Robert McConnell, Kent Campbell and Chair Bill Walters voting in favor of denial. The board’s action formally denies VAR-24-0007. The Board of Adjustment closed the docket and adjourned the meeting.

The decision leaves the applicants the option to revise their proposal or pursue alternate site changes that would comply with the 90-foot supplemental front setback, as board members repeatedly suggested during the hearing.