Chair Nikki McCord opened the meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments saying, "So, of course, we have 1 item tonight. That item is BOZ2025Dash0003, and that's our only item." The board approved the applicant's request to recognize and retain three additions at 3210 Twentieth Street by a 4–1 vote, with Nikki McCord casting the lone no vote.

The variance allows two attached covered patios and an attached single‑car garage/carport to remain at an east/rear setback of approximately 20.2 feet, where the R L 1 zoning district requires a 25‑foot rear yard setback. Robbie Wyler of Boulder Planning and Development Services summarized the case and staff recommendation, explaining the application is a continuation of a hearing that began April 8 and grew out of an enforcement referral after unpermitted work was discovered last year.

The board's decision follows staff findings that the property meets the three variance review criteria emphasized at the continued hearing. Wyler told the board that "physical circumstances or conditions to the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter" while noting the lot is a corner parcel with two front yards and an unusual house orientation that narrows buildable area on the south side.

Applicant representatives said the work responds to safety and weather‑resiliency concerns and that they have pursued professional review and neighbor mitigation. Architect Scott Robinson said the new carport replaces a deteriorating structure and that the patio covers provide protection from sun and weather and could support future solar panels. Homeowner Peggy (last name not provided in the record) told the board she and other household members are "quiet professional adults" and said the family would limit outdoor activity and proposed several mitigation measures, including planting screening vegetation, installing drop‑down blinds, finishing the patio ceiling, enclosing the carport with a door and offering to upgrade the shared fence at their expense.

A neighbor, Amina (speaking for herself and her mother, Joni, at 2020 Grape Avenue), opposed the variance. In her public comment she told the board she was not persuaded that the property could not be developed by right and said enforcement fairness was at issue: "We don't wish to be bad neighbors. We just wish to see rules enforced fairly and evenly across the city, and not have a sense of entitlement simply because one has made a mistake." Amina also raised concerns about audible speech clarity and the potential for flame‑prone plantings.

The applicant submitted an acoustical report from Wave Engineering; the firm concluded that projected speech levels at the property line would not, in its judgment, be disruptive at typical backyard seating areas. The applicant also provided drawings showing a by‑right alternative layout and argued that the proposed variance would be the minimum relief needed to afford practical use of the covered patio spaces. Staff noted that existing building coverage, floor area, height, side‑yard articulation and solar access comply with code and that approval would allow the applicant to proceed to complete the building permit review.

Board members discussed the three core criteria—unusual physical circumstances, impairment of adjacent use and the minimum necessary relief. Several members said the supplemental materials, the acoustical analysis and the by‑right drawings persuaded them the request met the standard; one member, Chair McCord, said she remained unconvinced that the property met the "unusual physical circumstances" threshold and voted no.

The board's motion to "approve BOZ2025Dash00003, as presented by staff" was moved by Vice Chair Ben (last name not stated) and seconded by Katie (last name not stated). The roll call votes recorded were: Sean Haney, yes; Drew Eisenberg, yes; Katie, yes; Ben, yes; Nikki McCord, no. The motion carried 4–1.

Robbie Wyler clarified a related point raised by the applicants about fencing: the city permits a fence up to 7 feet by right; an 8‑foot fence would require a separate variance hearing. Wyler also summarized that if the board approved the variance the applicant would return to the building permit process to finalize permit documentation; if the variance had been denied the applicant would need to redesign to meet code. The case record includes multiple letters: staff reported four letters of opposition and six letters of support submitted before the hearing and accepted three additional support letters into the record at the meeting.

The board closed the matter and moved on to other routine business. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with final building permit approvals that reflect the variance. The board offered a parting appeal for neighborly cooperation; Chair McCord said that while the meeting left some participants dissatisfied, "neighbors are going to live next to each other hopefully for a very long amount of time," and urged parties to work constructively.

Votes at a glance:
- BOZ2025‑0003 (3210 Twentieth Street) — Variance to rear (east) yard setback for two covered patios and a single‑car carport; requested rear setback ~20.2 ft where 25 ft is required. Outcome: Approved 4–1. Motion: "Approve BOZ2025Dash00003, as presented by staff." Mover: Ben (Vice Chair). Second: Katie. Yes: Sean Haney; Drew Eisenberg; Katie; Ben. No: Nikki McCord.

What happens next: With BOZA approval, the applicants will complete required building permit submittals and final inspections to legalize the work under the approved variance. If permit reviewers identify other code issues, those will be resolved in the normal permit review process.