Spring City board tables variance request to expand carport for wheelchair access

The Spring City Board of Adjustment on Monday tabled a homeowner’s request for a variance from the city’s front-yard setback to rebuild a carport and add a covered ramp and living space so an applicant’s son who uses a wheelchair can access the house.

The applicant, Samantha Brunner, told the board her family needs a covered ramp and wider interior access because “my son had an accident. He's paralyzed from the waist down. So we have to put ramps into the house for them to be able to get into the house.” She said the family’s design places a 19-foot ramp within the rebuilt carport so the vehicle can pull under and the wheelchair user can be transferred into the house.

Board members said they understood the accessibility need but raised questions under the municipal code’s variance standards, which require proof that literal enforcement would cause an unreasonable hardship and that special circumstances attached to the property exist. Board members discussed whether the difficulty is peculiar to the property or could be addressed through redesign. The code language and guidance the board reviewed says a variance may not be granted for hardships that are self-imposed or solely economic and that redesign options should be considered.

Key facts discussed at the hearing included: the applicant is seeking a 3.5-foot variance from the required 30-foot front-yard setback (the existing condition was described as about 26.5 feet from the fence line to the carport post), the proposed ramp length is about 19 feet, and the lot was described as roughly 1.04 (units not specified in the application). The applicant said the project would not expand past the footprint of the existing carport except to build westward to create the covered turning area required for manual wheelchair maneuvering. The applicant also said one of the family members uses the home part time (comes for surgeries and recovery) and that the ramp and interior layout must accommodate non-motorized wheelchairs.

Board members and staff requested additional documentation before they would vote. Specifically they asked the applicant to provide: an accurate, to-scale site plan showing the existing footprint and the proposed addition; a first-floor plan demonstrating the location of the stairway and door used for access; a front elevation; and an explanation or documentation from the designer showing other design alternatives that were considered and why they were infeasible. The board also said it would research whether ADA or other guidance affects the variance analysis and whether the “special circumstances” requirement can be interpreted to include accessibility needs in this case.

After discussion the board made a motion to postpone action so staff and the applicant could supply the requested documentation; the applicant agreed to provide the materials and the board agreed to reconvene at the applicant’s request. No roll-call vote or tally was recorded in the transcript.

The postponement means the applicant will return with clearer, to-scale plans and written explanations of alternatives considered and the reasons they were rejected. The board emphasized it must apply the five-part test in the municipal code for variances (unreasonable hardship, special circumstances, substantial property right, no substantial effect on the master plan/public interest, and observing the spirit of the ordinance) before granting relief that would alter a required setback.

What’s next: The applicant will submit the site verification and design alternatives; staff will check the existing measurements and research relevant interpretations (including ADA guidance and state variance guidance) and the board will schedule a reconvened hearing when the materials are submitted.