Victoria City Council denies variances for 209 Chantilly Street after staff, neighbors raise fire‑egress concerns

Victoria City Council on Jan. 7 voted to deny variance requests tied to an enclosed carport at 209 Chantilly Street, upholding recommendations from both the city's Board of Adjustments and the Planning Commission.

The denials cover three variance requests: emergency egress (fire‑egress) requirements, fire‑separation/wall construction, and an off‑street parking exception. Council members said the project as built creates a trapped egress path for a bedroom window and that the city lacked a safe way to issue the requested building permit without overturning the code requirement.

Development Services staff member Miss Fulghum explained the situation to the council, saying the owner had originally applied for a permit to enclose a steel carport as a garage, was denied, and later enclosed the carport without an approved permit after a neighbor complaint prompted an inspection and a stop‑work order. “Because of the egress to that bedroom, we don't see a ... way to make modifications to be able to issue a permit without a variance to that specific [requirement],” Miss Fulghum said, describing how enclosing the carport removed an exterior egress path required by code and made the bedroom’s escape route “a trapped space.”

The city code cited in the staff presentation includes sections of the Unified Development Ordinance that set minimum off‑street parking (section 21‑138, table 21) and egress/fire separation rules (section 21‑63). Staff noted garages are not counted as the two required off‑street parking spaces for a townhouse and that adding a garage door can eliminate required emergency egress from a sleeping room.

Property owner Ms. Reid told the council she had proceeded with enclosure after waiting a year for permits and believing a neighboring, nonpermitted garage would be removed. She said any removed wall would be replaced by a privacy fence and that equipment such as an air handler would be moved outside. “The one point that I'd like to make is that that back wall, if it comes down, it's gonna be replaced with a privacy fence,” Ms. Reid said. She also told council that most neighbors did not object, and that she had hoped the council would allow the work after considering neighborhood context.

Council discussion focused on two themes: (1) the immediate safety concern posed by enclosing a space that blocks required egress to the exterior, especially for firefighter access and rescue, and (2) scale: staff warned that approving variances for one unit could create broader neighborhood safety and parking problems if similar enclosures proliferated across a 42‑unit townhome development. Several council members said they were sympathetic to the property owner’s situation but not willing to override building and life‑safety codes.

Councilmembers moved and seconded motions to uphold the Boards’ recommendations and deny the requested variances. The motions passed on voice vote; the record shows the council denied the variances recommended to be denied by both the Board of Adjustments and the Planning Commission.

City staff said the denied variances leave open options for the homeowner to discuss alternative solutions with permitting staff — for example, reverting to an open carport configuration or making specific structural modifications that restore exterior egress and meet fire separation requirements — but that an approved variance would be required to keep the fully enclosed garage configuration as constructed.