Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves front-setback variance at 1105 West Lindsay
Summary
The Breckenridge Board of Adjustment approved a variance reducing the front setback from 25 feet to 10 feet at 1105 West Lindsay to allow a 12-by-20 carport, after the applicant and staff discussed gas-line locations, measurement differences and easement-versus-setback limits.
The Breckenridge Board of Adjustment voted by voice to approve a front-setback variance for the property at 1105 West Lindsay that will allow the owner to place a 12-by-20 carport 10 feet from the property line instead of the required 25 feet.
Staff presented the application and told the board that to grant a variance it must make written findings that specific conditions exist, including that strict application of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship and that the variance would not be contrary to public health, safety or welfare. "You have to make a written finding that all of these conditions exist," a board member stated during the presentation.
Property owner Tyler Owens told the board the carport would be roughly 12 feet wide, 20 feet long and about 6 feet high. "My truck is 19 foot long," Owens said, explaining the need for covered parking. He said he preferred to build a single carport and that backyard placement was infeasible because a gas line runs across the yard and the backyard was not fully marked by utility crews. "I couldn't even find out how deep the gas line was," Owens said.
Board members and staff discussed whether the requested structure would interfere with utilities or emergency response. One member asked that the fire chief weigh in on whether the carport location would cause undue hardship for emergency responders; no chief response appears in the transcript. Staff and board members clarified that a setback is not the same as a utility easement and noted that if a structure is later found to be built in an easement, the utility could require removal.
A motion to grant the variance was moved and seconded and then opened for discussion. After brief remarks from members and the applicant, the board approved the motion by voice vote; the transcript records a voice approval but does not record individual roll-call votes.
The board did not record additional conditions or a timeline for permit issuance in the meeting record included in the transcript. The applicant will need to follow the city’s standard permitting processes and any conditions the board places in its written findings. The meeting then moved on to other agenda items.
