Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals approves variance for 1,157-sq.-ft. pool house at East Bluesage Court
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to allow a 1,157-square-foot pool house at 1501 East Bluesage Court, exceeding the R-2 accessory-structure limit of 300 square feet; the board found the five variance criteria met and noted lot size and lot coverage factors.
The Andover Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to allow a 1,157-square-foot pool house at 1501 East Bluesage Court, finding the application met the statutory and regulatory criteria for a variance.
The city zoning administrator reported that the R-2 district limits accessory structures to 300 square feet and that the proposed pool house—1,157 square feet—would far exceed that limit. Staff noted the subject parcel measures nearly 22,500 square feet (well over the R-2 minimum) and that the proposed structure would bring total lot coverage to about 17 percent, under the district maximum of 35 percent. Staff also said similar approvals have occurred in the neighborhood and recommended approval.
Mark McCollum of McCollum Construction spoke for owner Shane Pierce (1501 East Bluesage Court). McCollum said Pierce was out of town and that the pool house would include a golf simulator and provide covered space adjacent to the existing pool. He told the board the homeowner had obtained homeowners association approval prior to bringing the item to the board.
No members of the public spoke at the hearing and no written objections were reported. The board deliberated the five variance criteria, and members repeatedly stated “concur” with staff’s findings that (1) the lot’s physical characteristics make a smaller accessory structure out of place, (2) no material detriment to neighbors is expected, (3) no adverse effects on light, air, traffic, fire risk or property values are anticipated, (4) the request is not motivated by a desire for profit, and (5) the variance would not oppose the spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.
Board member Dan Colson moved that the chair be authorized to sign a resolution granting variance case BZAV25-007 as requested, citing the findings in subsection 11-106(b)(2) of the zoning regulations and KSA 12-759(e). The motion was seconded; the chair called for the ayes and there were no opposed responses. The motion carried. A resolution will be prepared and made available to the applicant no later than 45 days from the date of the hearing. The board recorded that an aggrieved party may appeal to district court within 30 days after the resolution is signed and filed with the zoning administrator.
