Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leavenworth County Board of Zoning Appeals grants variance for rear-yard accessory structure (Schultz)
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to Article 20 §6 (rear yard setback for accessory structures) for the Schultz property at 16042 Linwood Road by a 7–0 vote after hearing the applicant’s agent and staff.
The Leavenworth County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance for an accessory structure’s rear-yard setback at 16042 Linwood Road, finding all five statutory criteria for a variance were met.
The board voted 7–0 to approve the variance request (case DEV25-028). Planning staff said the accessory structure sits approximately 2.5 feet from the rear property line; the structure had a building permit in 2015 but subsequent work was completed without a permit and resulted in the nonconforming setback. Staff explained that if the board denied the variance the parcel would remain a noncompliant property “not entitled to building permits.”
Crystal Wolf of Atlas Land Consulting, the applicant’s agent, addressed the board and said the owners believed the building met setback requirements when they built it and asked the board for approval rather than removal of the structure. Wolf said the owners understood they could not encroach further and described the situation as an inadvertent overrun: "This is truly a case where we're going to ask for forgiveness. We are very sorry that this happened. It was not purposeful."
Board action and implications: Commissioner Bailey moved to approve the variance and Commissioner Rosenthal seconded; roll-call recorded unanimous support (7–0). Planning staff said the approved variance will allow the existing accessory structure to remain, but the parcel will remain subject to the note in planning records about prior noncompliance; any future permitting beyond the current built condition would require compliance or new approvals.
Details from the record: the property was evaluated under the five statutory variance criteria (described in the staff report); staff did not recommend approval or denial but provided the analysis for the board to apply the statutory test. The board’s motion found that all five statutory criteria were met.
Next steps: the variance approval will be reflected in the parcel record; if future changes to the structure are proposed, the owner must obtain appropriate permits and any additions that would increase nonconformity would require separate approvals.
