Englewood board denies variance for unpermitted addition at 4710 S. Sherman St.

The Englewood City Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied a variance request for an existing residential addition at 4710 South Sherman Street after concluding the project failed to meet required variance criteria.

Staff recommended denial and the board voted 0-7 to deny the requested variance, which would have allowed the addition to encroach into the R1C zone's 5-foot side setback.

The variance request was introduced by Eric Sampson, Planner II with Community Development, who told the board the addition was built without permits and encroaches on the five-foot side setback required in the R1C district. "Community development staff does recommend denial of this variance," Sampson said, citing the five statutory variance criteria the board must apply.

Why it matters: a variance would permanently change what is permitted on the lot and could affect neighboring property owners' ability to use their land. Board members emphasized that the addition was constructed without prior permitting and that administrative avenues for smaller adjustments exist.

Staff analysis and building-division issues

Sampson summarized the five variance criteria the board must consider: a unique physical situation, unnecessary hardship if the variance is denied, consistency with the zoning intent, lack of impairment to adjacent properties, and whether the hardship is self-imposed. He said the property is a "pretty standard Englewood lot" and that the addition does not present topographical or other physical constraints that would satisfy the first two criteria.

Brian Iceman, the planning manager, explained the city's administrative option for limited encroachments under the newer "Code Next" provisions and said that administrative adjustments are explicitly capped. "It gave staff the administrative ability to approve a permit to extend that setback, but only up to 15% of what's already existing," Iceman said, adding that the subject addition well exceeds that threshold (he noted the administrative limit would equate to about 17 feet in an example, while the current project was described as about 28.8 feet in the materials).

Carrie Babin, assistant building official, described outstanding building-review items that had been addressed: revised grading/drainage plans to accommodate a swale and assembly details to provide a one-hour fire rating for the new addition. Babin said those corrections meant the building division could proceed on the construction-permit side if the zoning variance were granted, but that zoning review and building review are distinct.

Applicant and neighborhood comment

Dustin Warbach, representing the property owner, argued the addition preserved the home—s profile and that several nearby homes have similar encroachments. "We believe it preserves the architectural integrity of the home," Warbach said, and added that the revised plans include a swale and fire-rated assembly details.

A nearby resident, Jan McCoy, spoke in opposition. McCoy said she lives within two blocks of the property, described this as one of several recent stop-work orders in the neighborhood and urged the board to follow code. "Please do not grant this variance," McCoy told the board, saying unpermitted construction can create long-term property-line and drainage problems for neighbors.

Board discussion and vote

Board members discussed each of the five variance criteria. Several members said the age of the existing structure (a 1927 building noted in staff materials) does not by itself meet the "unique situation" test because the city created an administrative adjustment process for historic, pre-code conditions. Multiple members also concluded the addition was a self-imposed hardship because it was built without permits. One member noted efforts by the applicant and building division to resolve drainage and fire-rating issues, but said the zoning criteria require all five tests to be met.

A motion to grant the variance was made and seconded, then the board voted. The roll call produced seven "no" votes and zero "yes" votes; the motion failed. The board instructed staff to return within the statutory time frame to prepare and approve findings of fact for the denial.

Outcome and next steps

The motion to grant the variance (Case VAR2025-001) failed; the board denied the requested variance to allow the existing addition to encroach into the five-foot side setback in the R1C zone. Because the construction occurred without permits, Babin said building permits and related inspections remain necessary before any continued construction or occupancy.

The board noted it must adopt written findings of fact for the record within the statutory deadline and scheduled follow-up on those findings at a future meeting.

Ending

The public hearing was closed following the vote and the board proceeded to the remaining agenda items and adjourned.