Cody board approves special exemption reducing side-yard setback to 1.6 feet with condition tied to fire-code compliance

The City of Cody Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board on Feb. 11 approved a special exemption to reduce the side-yard setback at 627 Fifteenth Street from five feet to 1.6 feet, subject to a condition that recording of the boundary line adjustment and exemption cannot occur until the city and the fire marshal confirm the structure meets fire-code protections.

Community development staff told the board that Joshua and Reina Collinger submitted a boundary-line adjustment that, as proposed, would move a property line so an existing house porch would be 1.6 feet from the new lot line. Staff noted the house was remodeled in April 2020 and was in compliance at that time; the boundary-line adjustment, submitted Dec. 30, 2024, combined with a fence installed on the proposed new line, created the present setback conflict.

Applicant Josh Holland, who identified himself as the property owner, told the board he had owned the property about six years and believed the parcel was D2 zoning when purchased. “When I purchased it, I was informed it was D2 zoning, and I asked what D2 zoning meant ... they basically covered the fact that it was available for commercial use, and that there was no setbacks,” he said, describing conversations he had with staff during the process.

Staff explained the setback standard the board must apply and noted concerns that a reduced side-yard setback “does not leave enough room for separation between neighboring properties and the fire protection between residential properties.” Staff cited Wyoming statutes limiting reliance on a master plan for denying uses (Wyoming statutes 9-8-301 and 15-1-602) and advised any exemption should be recorded with the boundary-line adjustment if approved.

Board members explored options that would avoid the deviation — for example, placing a jog in the adjusted lot line — and discussed fire-protection measures. The building official and the county fire marshal were testing a product the applicant identified as a potential fire-protection measure; the board added a condition that recording of the boundary-line adjustment and special exemption be withheld until the city and fire marshal confirm the fire-protection solution meets building and fire-code requirements.

The board’s motion to approve included staff’s recommended findings and conditions 1 through 4 plus an additional condition (number 5) specifying that recording cannot take place until city and fire-marshals confirm compliance with the city’s fire code. The motion was made by Dan H and seconded; the board voted in favor.

Staff noted 15 neighboring property owners were notified, with two responses recorded as no objection and no objection responses recorded as opposed. The board recommended approval of the special exemption and required that the exemption be recorded with the boundary-line adjustment once the fire-protection condition is satisfied.