Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies large setback variances for small ridgeline lot, citing self-imposed hardship
Summary
The Board of Adjustment denied a package of variances for a 0.57-acre ridgeline lot (BOA2025-09), concluding that requests for substantial deck/patio encroachment and other large reductions were largely self-imposed by the proposed oversized house design.
Get email alerts on the Setbacks Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Weber County Board of Adjustment denied a package of variance requests for a 0.57-acre ridgeline lot in the Forest Valley 3 zone after concluding that many of the encroachments were driven by the applicants design choices rather than unavoidable site constraints.
Staff described the lot as grandfathered, legally nonconforming and irregular in shape; the applicant sought multiple reductions including a 16-foot side encroachment for a patio/deck, a small one-foot-two-inch foundation encroachment and a four-foot rear setback adjustment to square off a corner. Staff and the applicant also acknowledged earlier variances had been granted for the property in prior years, and the applicant said they had scaled back a previously larger proposal.
Builder/representative described the design and argued that topography and the lots triangular shape drove certain needs to square portions of the house. However, several board members said the proposed house footprint (applicant indicated roughly 11,300 square feet total across floors, about 5,500 square feet per level in part) and a 500-square-foot deck/hot-tub area with structural footings represented self-imposed elements that could be redesigned without variances.
After extended deliberation, a motion to deny the variance package on the ground that the hardship was self-imposed carried. The board discussed the possibility of approving limited concessions (for example, a small rear adjustment to square the plan or a 1.2-inch pillar variance) but declined to approve the larger package as presented. The item will not be further acted on at this meeting; one related item with a notice error was tabled to allow corrected notice and additional review.
Next steps: the applicant may redesign and resubmit or pursue appeal; staff will reflect the boards denial in the written record and provide guidance on what limited changes might be acceptable without requiring large variances.

