Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leawood Board of Zoning Appeals approves most residential variances, denies a garage-height request
Summary
At its November meeting the Board of Zoning Appeals approved multiple homeowner variances and exceptions — including a replacement home exception and several setback and generator variances — denied a 2-foot garage-height variance and continued one case after the applicant left mid-hearing.
The Leawood Board of Zoning Appeals on its November agenda approved a majority of residential variance and exception requests, denied a garage-height variance and continued one case after procedural confusion.
The board approved an exception for a teardown-rebuild at 2906 West 92nd Place that allows a 4,744-square-foot house on a lot with a 4,002-square-foot ordinance maximum. Michael Smith, the owner, told the board the extra area would be concentrated in second-story and attic space and would not materially change the house footprint. Neighbor Fred Schlichting testified he worried the larger home would “dwarf the existing cul-de-sac,” but the board approved the exception by voice vote after staff said letters were mailed and only two informational calls had been received.
At 2918 West 92nd Place the board approved a variance allowing an attached garage slightly larger than the LDO maximum after finding the lot’s irregular shape and placement of the principal dwelling met the LDO’s five-criteria test. Brian Scott, the property owner, said the 876-square-foot garage would accommodate a handicap-accessible van and storage needs and that locating a compliant-sized garage would force functional inefficiency.
A request at the same address for a 2-foot height variance for the architecturally attached garage was denied. Board members and staff disagreed over whether the applicant demonstrated hardship beyond aesthetics; one member said the LDO does not require an exact roofline match, and the board voted to deny the height variance after concluding not all five criteria were satisfied.
Multiple setback and placement variances for a large lot at 14108 Windsor Drive were approved. Homeowner Corbin Turlup and architect Weston Coble said they sought a rear-yard variance so a pool cabana, pool and a fenced fire-pit could be located farther from the house for child-safety sightlines. The board approved both the cabana and fire-pit variances after finding the lot’s unusual depth created practical hardship.
At 8017 Meadow Lane the board approved a 3-foot variance to place a permanently installed generator closer to a side property line, after the homeowner Linda Saner said the chosen location would be least obtrusive and that the nearest neighbor submitted a support letter.
The board also approved a 4-foot metal fence placement variance on a corner lot following a tear-down/rebuild and approved an exception for a 12.7-foot side-yard addition that aligns with an existing nonconforming face. Builder and applicant presentations were generally supported by staff reports confirming mailed notices and limited resident response.
Not all requests passed. At 4017 West 138th Terrace the board denied a 2-foot height variance even as the applicant argued existing grade and roof alignment justified the change. Separately, a pair of side-yard setback requests at 2819 West 89th Street resulted in one denial (case 65) after neighbors and a board majority concluded the applicant had not met the LDO’s uniqueness and hardship tests; the second request (case 66) was continued when the applicant left the meeting before it was heard.
Procedural notes: Board member Pepas announced a recusal on three early cases and will step down from BZA consideration on those items because of a potential conflict of interest. The board confirmed roll call, approved prior minutes and adjourned after completing the docket. Decisions will be followed by written notices to applicants.
The board relied repeatedly on the Leawood Development Ordinance (LDO) five-criteria framework — uniqueness, adjacent property rights, hardship, public safety/general welfare and spirit/intent — to evaluate variances and exceptions; staff repeatedly noted mailed notices and a low level of public opposition across cases.
What’s next: Several approvals will be finalized by written notice to applicants; one case was continued to the board’s next scheduled meeting and one denial closes that appeal unless the applicant requests further review.
