Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies variance to legalize large outdoor kitchen and rooftop patio at Antler Trail property

Jefferson County Board of Adjustment
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After two hours of testimony, the Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny a variance that would have legalized an accessory outdoor kitchen and rooftop patio at 11660 Antler Trail; staff had recommended denial and board members concluded the variance criteria were not met.

Jefferson County's Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny a request to legalize an accessory outdoor kitchen and rooftop patio built within required setbacks at 11660 Antler Trail (case 24-133121 VC).

Planning staff recommended denial, noting aerial imagery places the structure on the property sometime between 2012 and 2014 and that the owner had not established an exceptional practical difficulty, as required by the zoning code. Staff recommended the structure was self-imposed and that the applicant had not shown physical constraints preventing relocation to meet setbacks.

Applicant counsel argued the current owners purchased the property in 2022 in good faith and inherited unpermitted work; counsel asked the board to consider the "other extraordinary and exceptional" clause and allow the owners to reverse-engineer the structure to code. The owners and several neighbors testified: some neighbors supported keeping the structure, and others raised concerns about propane tank placement, a spiral staircase and a second-story rooftop feature.

After an executive session for legal advice, board members deliberated on whether an "innocent purchaser" situation is sufficient under the variance criteria to justify relief. Members concluded the case did not satisfy the statutory elements that tie variance relief to land-based conditions, and the motion to approve failed on a 0-5 roll call. The application therefore remains disapproved and the applicants were directed to consult the county attorney and planning staff on next steps.