Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Noncompliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board keeps Barnett family—s deck after approving variance for work done larger than permit
Summary
The Adams County Board approved a variance letting an existing 12x30 deck built larger than its permit remain; staff said roughly half of the deck lies inside the 75-foot setback and the board cited neighbor support and unique lake conditions.
Adams County—s Board of Appeals approved a variance allowing the Barnett family—s existing deck at 3299 East Parker Lake Road to remain after staff found the built deck exceeded the originally permitted footprint.
Staff reported the south end of the 12-by-30-foot deck meets the 75-foot ordinary high-water mark setback (about 76.5 feet), while the north end sits inside the setback (about 63 feet, 10 inches). The county initially issued a 5-by-7 permit to replace an unsafe sandstone platform, but an expanded deck was constructed; staff said the inspector first noticed the size discrepancy after construction.
Applicant Jerry or Mickey Barnett (S10) told the board he had previously applied for variances years earlier and believed the contractor had obtained the necessary permits this time. "I thought I was legal," he said, adding he spent roughly $25,000 on the deck.
Board members explored options, including removing the portion of the deck within the setback (staff estimated about half of the deck, roughly 180 square feet, would need to be removed). Members also discussed the challenge of enforcing uniform setbacks on fluctuating lakes such as Parker and Jordan and emphasized that each case is unique.
Neighbors provided several public comments in support of letting the deck remain. Jim Cashmore (S13) said the deck "fits in the neighborhood" and enhances the lake. Immediate neighbor Bruce Korda (S9) called the structure "well built" and argued that preserving the deck protects local property values and the county tax base.
A motion to approve the variance passed; the board recorded reasons including limited increase in impervious coverage (about 150 square feet), the lake—s fluctuating levels, the immediate neighbors— support and the applicant—s assertion that he acted on incorrect advice from a contractor. Staff noted potential enforcement remedies include doubling permit fees or other administrative fines when a structure is built outside permit conditions.
The board closed the item after recording reasons for approval and confirming the variance allows the structure to remain.
