Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County planning panel disapproves variance for second‑story addition at 239 Engine House Circle
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 5–1 to disapprove a major variance that would have reduced the west side setback from 7 feet to 0 for a second‑story addition at 239 Engine House Circle. Neighbors objected to construction without prior permits; the applicant acknowledged he should have obtained approvals earlier.
The Douglas County Planning Commission voted 5–1 to disapprove a major variance application, DP25‑0141, that sought to reduce the west side yard setback from seven feet to zero for a 534‑square‑foot second‑story addition above an existing garage at 239 Engine House Circle. Commissioner Kirk moved to disapprove the variance; Jim McCallop seconded and the motion carried, with Paul Bridal voting no and Bryce Klutz absent.
Community Development planner Lucille Reo told the commission the matter had been continued from October after staff discovered the addition had already been constructed. Reo read conditions requested by Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, including a fuel‑modification plan, a recorded maintenance covenant, and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system if the variance were approved.
Applicant representatives said surveys and the lot shape support the request. Zach Wood, a certified planner and land‑surveyor‑in‑training with Wilson Engineers, presented 1979, 2020 and an August 2025 survey and argued the garage predates the addition and that prior TRPA approvals and HOA design‑review signoffs were relevant. Attorney John Gheslin told the panel the two licensed surveys show the garage is “wholly within Mr. Nielsen’s property,” and that the three required variance findings could be met.
Neighbor Jack Trainor, who lives at 237 Engine House Circle, urged the commission to reject the request and said the applicant had pursued a "build first, ask forgiveness later" approach: "Mr. Nielsen’s actions forced us to be here to address his willful disregard for the authority of Douglas County," Trainor said. He pressed that the commission should be careful about establishing a precedent that would permit construction before required approvals.
Commission members questioned when construction began and ended (testimony placed deconstruction/start in October 2024 and completion in mid‑2025), which plan set was used on site, and whether windows now penetrate the west wall — a fact the applicant acknowledged had changed since earlier documents and that could affect building‑code separation requirements. Commissioners also noted county records from the late 1970s are spotty and that a prior variance in 2004 had expired and does not eliminate current code obligations.
Several commissioners said they were unable to make the necessary findings: they expressed concern that the addition as built could cause material damage or prejudice to adjacent property owners and that the "exceptional hardship" standard is hard to justify for an addition on an existing lot. One commissioner favored a conditional approval requiring immediate building‑permit compliance and satisfaction of fire‑district conditions; most disagreed. The motion to disapprove was adopted following the finding‑based debate.
The applicant may pursue available appeals or reapply; county counsel noted a one‑year reapplication limitation would typically apply if the commission denies a variance. The commission recessed for five minutes and then proceeded to the next agenda item.
