Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Fairholme Pergola topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies pergola variance at Fairholme Court after neighbors cite unpermitted rebuild
Summary
The Lafayette Planning Commission unanimously denied a variance for a reconstructed pergola at 3295 Fairholme Court, adopting Resolution 2025‑15 and citing the applicant’s failure to demonstrate unusual site constraints required for a variance; a 14‑day appeal period was announced.
The Lafayette Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a variance requested for a pergola at 3295 Fairholme Court, adopting Resolution 2025‑15 and finding the applicant did not meet the legal findings required for setback relief in the R‑20 district.
Staff explained that the pergola, as reconstructed, sits roughly 1 foot 4 inches from the side yard and about 5 feet 8 inches from the rear yard, while the R‑20 district requires 15‑foot side and rear setbacks. Staff told the commission that the property does not present an unusual size, shape or topography that would justify the variance and that the code provision permitting restoration after damage does not apply here because the structure had been removed and the valuation test was not satisfied.
Applicant Alex Kolavyansky described extensive easements on the flag lot (a 10‑foot drainage easement, a 5‑foot sewer easement and additional drainage constraints) and said ivy and tree growth had structurally compromised the preexisting pergola. He said the family reduced the structure from about 363 sq ft to 298 sq ft, stopped work when informed of violations, and sought to legalize and permit the rebuilt structure for safety reasons.
Nearby neighbor Bill Hallager opposed the variance and told the commission the pergola had been completely replaced in September 2023 without building permits or inspection, raising concerns about footings, code compliance and precedent. Other neighbors testified both for and against the request; one neighbor supported the variance on safety grounds.
After discussing legal standards for variance findings and the limited circumstances that permit rebuilding in place after damage, a commissioner moved and the commission voted to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny the variance. Roll call was unanimous in favor of denial (5–0); the commission announced a 14‑day appeal period.
Next steps: The applicant may appeal the decision or modify the proposal (for example, reduce size or relocate the structure) and reapply or pursue other remedies.
