Board denies variance for rear‑setback deck at Morrison home, citing ODP and easement concerns

The Jefferson County Board of Adjustment voted to deny a variance that would have allowed a homeowner at 4898 Norris Avenue in Morrison to extend a second‑level deck three feet into the required 10‑foot rear setback.

Planning staff recommended denial after reviewing the application and finding the lot’s constraints did not meet the county’s variance criteria. Mary Sloan, the planner presenting the case, told the board the property is 0.08 acres inside a Planned Development (three‑Hills subdivision) and that the rear yard is largely burdened by a recorded drainage and utility easement. Staff concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the exceptional practical difficulty required for a variance and recommended denial.

The applicant’s landscape designer, Catherine Johnson (speaking for applicant Catherine Witt), argued the hardship is physical and preexisting: the builder‑installed lot has a very shallow rear yard, as‑built grades differed materially from the approved plot plan and the full scope of recorded easements and ODP restrictions were not disclosed to the buyer before closing. Johnson presented engineering and utility letters she said show no objection to the proposed limited encroachment and described a design using cantilevering, a small number of posts and removable at‑grade features to address drainage and erosion.

Board members questioned whether the claimed foundation or drainage risk required posts set into the easement, whether alternative at‑grade solutions (less than 12 inches high) could correct erosion without a variance, and whether the claimed hardship was self‑imposed by buying a builder‑developed lot up to the ODP limit. Several members noted that the overall subdivision follows a consistent ODP plan where most homes align to the same setback line and that utility easements can require removal of later improvements.

A motion to approve the variance failed on roll call: two board members voted no, one voted yes and the chair voted no, yielding an overall failure to reach the affirmative threshold. The board’s formal finding was that the applicant had not established the necessary criteria for a variance, and staff advised the applicant on next steps and potential administrative options such as exploring an at‑grade patio solution (less than 12 inches high) that might be handled without a variance, subject to utility holder approval and drainage review.

The denial preserves the ODP‑required rear setback for the subdivision and leaves open administrative remedies the applicant may pursue with county staff.