The Lafayette Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a variance request for a reconstructed pergola at 3295 Fairholme Court, adopting Resolution 2025-15 and finding the variance findings could not be made.

Staff presented the item and noted the rebuilt pergola sits approximately 1 foot 4 inches from the side property line and roughly 5 feet 8 inches from the rear, whereas the R‑20 zoning requires 15 feet for side and rear setbacks (staff also clarified the correct aggregate side-yard standard). Staff found the structure is not eligible for the municipal code’s "rebuild after damage" exception because the permitted threshold (a 50% value test and other criteria) was not met, and staff reported no building permit was found for the recent reconstruction. Central Sanitation flagged a sewer easement across the rear property line; staff said the pergola as shown did not encroach into that specific easement but noted easement constraints in its review.

Applicant Alex Kolavyonski said the pergola location is constrained by multiple easements (10-foot drainage easement, 5-foot sewer easement and a north-side drainage easement), a pool and site geometry, and that the structure was damaged over time by ivy and a tree, forcing demolition and partial reconstruction for safety. He said he reduced the pergola’s footprint from roughly 363 square feet to 298 square feet and asked the commission to permit the rebuilt structure.

Neighbors including Bill Hallager (3291 Fairholme Court) opposed the variance, saying the pergola was fully replaced in Sept. 2023 without permits, that new footings were poured and no inspections occurred, and that the structure represents an unpermitted enlargement. He raised concerns about the block wall that separates the lots and possible drainage and safety impacts. Other neighbors supported the applicant and said a permitted, safer replacement is preferable to leaving an unsafe structure in place.

Commission discussion focused on whether the property’s physical constraints satisfy the narrow legal standard for a variance. Commissioners and staff noted the municipal code does allow some nonconforming structures to persist but does not generally allow owners to demolish and rebuild the same substandard structure unless the stringent threshold for reconstruction is met. After deliberation, a commissioner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny the variance; the motion carried unanimously in roll call. A 14-day appeal period was announced.

What happens next: Because the variance was denied, options for the owner include removing the reconstructed pergola or pursuing an appeal; the owner may also revise the design and reapply if they can demonstrate that the variance findings are met.