Board approves after‑the‑fact variance for Slidell accessory building, conditions require utility or court clearance

The St. Tammany Parish Board of Adjustments on Oct. 7 approved an after‑the‑fact variance permitting a 750-square-foot accessory structure at 216 Bristol Place, Slidell, to remain 0.9 feet from the side property line, subject to conditions.

Attorney Andrew Dysart, representing property owner Jonathan Glass, told the board that the new building replaced an older dilapidated boat shed built on an existing concrete pad. Dysart said the applicant obtained letters of no objection from adjacent neighbors, the homeowners’ association and the applicant’s council member and that the owner had attempted but could not locate a current utility company owner for an identified telecommunication easement. Dysart said research and an attorney opinion indicated the easement may have been abandoned or extinguished by nonuse.

Planning staff’s report noted no adjacent property objections in the file but said no hardship was demonstrated to justify an after‑the‑fact variance and warned the structure appears to sit within an existing utility easement, which could create conflicts for maintenance or repair of underground utilities. Staff recommended that, if the board favored approval, it be conditioned on applying for a building permit, providing a no‑objection letter from the utility company confirming the building may remain in the easement, and submitting a drainage plan to show no adverse drainage impacts.

Board members discussed the legal difficulty of proving an easement has been extinguished (which typically requires a court finding) and noted Code Enforcement had issued an earlier order giving the owner 120 days to apply for a permit or remove the structure. To address timing and enforcement concerns, the board approved the variance with conditions: the owner must apply for a building permit, submit a drainage plan, and either provide a no‑objection letter from the utility company or supply a court judgment or summary judgment declaring the easement extinguished. The board asked that Planning and Development and the parish legal department review submitted materials as part of the conditions.

The motion to approve was made by Board member Wendell and seconded by Board member Bloch; the chair called the vote and the motion carried. The board did not specify a roll‑call tally at the time of the announcement beyond calling the motion carried and stating "all in favor." Staff and counsel advised the owner that if the required documentation cannot be provided in time the property may be reposted by Code Enforcement and the owner may need to seek extensions or pursue relief in court.

The board's approval was limited to zoning relief (setback variance) and expressly conditioned on the documentation outlined in the staff report and the board motion.