Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leawood zoning board denies variance for grade change at 8551 High Drive
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request for a 3.2-foot variance to allow a retaining wall and pool associated with a teardown–rebuild at 8551 High Drive after neighbors raised concerns and the board found the application did not meet all required variance criteria.
The Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Leawood voted to deny a request for a variance to the maximum allowed grade change for property at 8551 High Drive, concluding the application failed to meet all five statutory criteria required for a variance.
The variance request sought approval for a retaining wall up to 4.2 feet to accommodate a proposed backyard swimming pool tied to a tear‑down and rebuild. City staff said the project requires review because the pool permit is associated with the teardown–rebuild, making the grade‑change standard applicable.
The board’s decision followed testimony from the applicant’s representative and several nearby residents. Jonathan Willard, representing Stonebridge Outdoor and the property owners, said the grade change is “very subtle” and that the lot’s size and topography make the pool feasible only with a retaining wall. Willard said the existing slope “drains toward the southwest, and it will continue to do so if this variance is approved.” He also clarified that the wall at issue is already in place and that “there is no further proposed retaining wall,” adding that the project would not expand the current footprint.
Neighbors objected. Jerry Jordan, who said he has lived behind the property for 42 years, described the rear lot as “very steep” and said the project risked disturbing mature trees along Dykes Branch Creek. John B. Stalder said notification materials he received did not match the house that was built and criticized the accuracy of plans sent to neighbors.
Board members discussed the five variance criteria, focusing on uniqueness of the property and demonstration of hardship. Members agreed the lot’s topography and size were unusual, but several members said they could not find the statutory hardship required for a variance, noting that the inability to build exactly as proposed does not by itself satisfy the legal standard. The board also heard from Travis Torres, Director of Building Code Enforcement, who said inspections to date had been satisfactory and reiterated that Leawood does not have an architectural review board; he confirmed the only item before the zoning board was the grade‑change variance.
After deliberation the board took a motion to deny the application. The motion passed by voice vote and the chair announced, “The application’s been denied, sir. You’ll be notified by staff in writing.”
The board recorded that it had received no written complaints and two phone inquiries about the project; one caller attended the hearing. The applicant and neighbors were advised they would receive written notice of the decision from staff.
Details recorded at the hearing: the variance sought was a 3.2‑foot variance to allow a maximum 4.2‑foot retaining wall; the lot depth was described as over 630 feet; neighbors estimated 16–20 trees in the affected slope ranging from roughly 30–50 years old. City staff stated the request was governed by the Leawood Development Ordinance (LDO) provision for grade changes associated with teardown–rebuilds.
