Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance 1045 Union topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sparks council affirms planning commission, denies variance for 1045 Union Street
Summary
The council affirmed the planning commission—s denial of a variance request for unpermitted additions at 1045 Union St., concluding the applicant did not meet required hardship findings; council urged the owner to work with staff on alternative remedies.
Sparks City Council on Oct. 13, 2025 unanimously affirmed the Sparks Planning Commission—s July denial of a variance request for a single-family lot at 1045 Union Street.
Development services manager Scott Carey told the council the appeal sought to reduce rear and front yard setbacks to allow existing unpermitted additions to remain. Carey said staff and the planning commission concluded the property did not present "unusual size, shape, dimension, or topography" and could not meet required variance findings under Sparks Municipal Code. "Variances are a request for rare and unique circumstances when there is a determined hardship," Carey said, and the commission found the threshold unmet.
Applicant Terry Morris, calling from Ireland, presented a recorded statement and then responded by phone. Morris said the additions evolved over decades while the home served as her late mother—s residence and argued strict enforcement would require partial demolition. "If I am responsible for my mother's actions, where does the law say this?" Morris asked. She said the changes are integrated into the home's functioning and that removal would impose "extreme hardship."
Council members asked about alternative paths. Staff acknowledged the major deviation process can allow up to a 50% reduction in a measurable standard and said they were willing to work with the applicant on a major deviation or redesign that could meet building, safety and drainage requirements. Assistant staff cautioned that any permitted reconstruction would still need to comply with current building codes because the additions were never legally permitted.
Council member Paul Anderson moved to affirm the planning commission's denial "without prejudice" for variance V25-1, citing inability to make findings V1 through V4 in the staff report; Council member Diane Vanderwell seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The council's decision denies the current variance appeal but leaves open administrative and permitting options: the applicant may apply for a major deviation, pursue building permits with structural review, or work with staff on mitigations.
The council meeting record shows staff and council encouraged ongoing collaboration between the applicant and planning/building departments to seek a feasible resolution.
