Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for rear setback at 107 Mimosa Drive, gives owner 90 days to resolve
Summary
The Board of Zoning and Appeals denied a request to reduce the required 30-foot rear yard setback to 13.51 feet for a home at 107 Mimosa Drive, but agreed not to pursue enforcement for 90 days to allow the owner time to replat or otherwise resolve the encroachment.
The Board of Zoning and Appeals on July 8 denied a variance request for property at 107 Mimosa Drive that would have reduced the required 30-foot rear yard setback to 13.51 feet, but the board conditioned its denial on a 90-day window during which the city will not pursue enforcement to allow the owner time to attempt a replat or other remedy.
Staff told the board the addition at 107 Mimosa Drive was built without a permit and the encroachment was discovered during a routine inspection. Director Durham said staff recommended denial because "the subject addition was constructed without a permit and does not meet the legal standards for granting a variance," adding the applicant had not shown a unique physical hardship or that the hardship was not self-created.
An engineer representing the owner said the work was done while the owners were out of town and that the prior line of occupation and maintenance by a previous owner led to an assumption about the property boundary. The engineer said, "there's no good excuse for any of it. We're just trying to solve the problem now." He also told the board they were in the process of negotiating with adjacent property owners and expected to survey and attempt a replat.
Board members discussed options including denial, conditional denial, and deferral. Staff explained that a conditional denial with a time frame would allow the city to avoid immediately pursuing enforcement while giving the property owner time to replat; if the condition were not met staff could proceed with enforcement and court action. One board member summarized that a denial with a 90-day period for replatting would be appropriate.
A motion to deny the variance, with the provision that the city not pursue enforcement for 90 days to allow the applicant time to replat, passed by voice vote. The roll call earlier in the meeting showed four board members present; the board recorded the motion as approved with no opposition.
The denial leaves enforcement and removal of the encroaching addition as possible outcomes if the owner does not secure the required property adjustments within the 90-day period. Planning staff told the board the matter could return to the Board of Zoning and Appeals for further consideration if the applicant requests an extension.
The agenda report described the property as zoned R-10, medium-density residential, and noted a published public hearing consistent with state law; staff reported no written public comments in favor or opposition as of the meeting.
The board also approved minutes from its March 11 meeting earlier in the session.
