BZA approves rear-yard variance to allow covered deck at 14601 Howe Drive

6403073 · October 23, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board voted to allow restoration/covering of an existing legal nonconforming deck at 14601 Howe Drive, finding the covered deck would be placed in the same location and that reducing its size would impose hardship.

The Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 22 approved a variance allowing a covered deck to replace an existing deck at 14601 Howe Drive.

Staff told the board the applicant proposes to replace an existing deck with a covered deck that will sit 10 feet from the rear property line on an irregularly shaped lot; the lot’s minimum rear-yard setback is 15 feet, so a five-foot variance is required.

Applicant Mark Stuckel, 14601 Howe Drive, said the existing uncovered deck is more than 20 years old and is legal nonconforming. He told the board that reducing the deck by five feet to meet the setback would leave the household without a usable deck and that the location backs onto a common area and walking trail, which reduces privacy concerns for adjacent owners. "We decided we would love to go with a covered deck," Stuckel said, adding that rebuilding an appreciably smaller deck would cause practical hardship.

Board members examined the five variance criteria, and one member explicitly noted that the proposal returns the deck to the same location and that limiting the size would be a hardship because it would prevent the family from having a deck of the prior dimensions.

A motion to approve Case 51-2025, 14601 Howe Drive, a variance to the rear yard setback under LDO section 16-2-55.3 (irregular lot) in the R-1 district, passed on a voice vote; the chair announced the motion carried. The board said the applicant will be notified in writing.

The record indicates the proposed covered deck occupies the footprint of the previous deck and that the board treated the preexisting uncovered deck as a legal nonconforming structure in evaluating hardship.