Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weber County Board of Adjustment denies 2.5-foot setback variance for Somerset Farms accessory structure
Summary
The Board denied an application (DOA 25-04) seeking a 2.5-foot variance from the 10-foot east-side setback at 3752 West 2340 South in the Somerset Farms subdivision after members concluded the applicant had feasible alternatives and did not demonstrate an unreasonable hardship.
At a Weber County Board of Adjustment hearing, the board denied application DOA 25-04, refusing a request to allow an accessory building to encroach 2.5 feet into the 10-foot required east setback at 3752 West 2340 South in the Somerset Farms subdivision.
The request was for a 20-by-40-foot outbuilding. Applicant Craig Gordon told the board he purchased an adjacent strip of land in August 2024 that increased his lot by roughly 1,336 square feet and that a fence had been placed before the lot line adjustment. Gordon said the proposed building could not be shifted west because of an RV dump station and utility locations on the lot, and that the preferred layout preserved driveway alignment and aesthetics. "I purchased that property back in... I have the check as August 2024," Gordon said, explaining the lot-line adjustment and the timing of the fence installation.
Tammy, a planning staff member who presented the file, said staff does not make recommendations to the board and summarized the application background, including the lot-line adjustment undertaken to align a fence with the desired property boundary. Board members discussed the five legal criteria for variances, repeatedly noting the board must find an "unreasonable hardship" before granting a variance. One board member told Gordon the proposal appeared self-imposed and said, "you are proposing a building that doesn't fit in the setback footprint," and suggested alternatives such as rotating the building, reducing its width, or using multiple smaller structures.
Board members noted several possible alternatives that, according to the discussion, would avoid encroachment: a smaller footprint, tilting the building, or dividing the structure into separate components. The board also raised concern about how an adjacent lot owner might view a permissive encroachment, and one member emphasized that setbacks in the subdivision were established at platting and are treated as a protected element of the zoning scheme.
After debate, a motion to deny the variance — citing an inability to find an unreasonable hardship and noting the structure could be relocated or reconfigured to comply with setbacks — carried on a roll-call vote. The board's action denies the applicant's request; the motion to deny passed and the application was therefore refused.
The meeting closed with no further business on the agenda.
