Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder County Board of Adjustment denies setback variance for Longmont-area junkyard
Summary
The Board of Adjustment on Jan. 7 denied VAR250005, a request to reduce front and rear setbacks to allow a 10-foot fence at 260 S. Sunset St. Staff said variance criteria were not met; the applicant said the fence position dates to a court order and removing it would harm mature trees.
The Boulder County Board of Adjustment voted Jan. 7 to deny a variance request to reduce front and rear setbacks at 260 South Sunset Street, a Longmont-area parcel used as a junkyard.
Community Planning and Permitting staff recommended denial of docket VAR250005 after finding the parcel lacks the "exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances" required for a variance and that hardship criteria were not met. Pete LaRonge, who summarized the staff analysis to the board, said most of the 2.46-acre site lies within the regulatory floodway and that while a fence could be built with an accompanying floodplain permit, the variance application did not meet the code’s tests.
"Staff recommend that the Board of Adjustment denied the docket ... VAR250005 Traverton setback reductions as it cannot meet all of the criteria of the land use code for a variance," LaRonge told the board.
The applicant, Luke Embry, said the existing fence line has stood since about 1977 and that a portion of the fencing was placed following a court order when parcel boundaries were different. Embry said moving the required 10-foot fence to comply with present setbacks would mean removing a row of mature trees and would complicate his ability to bring the property into compliance.
"Being that it's been there this long, would allow me to definitely be able to get that done quicker," Embry said, explaining his request to keep the fence where it currently stands.
One in-person speaker, Alice Walker of Boulder, told the board she routinely passes the site and "did not even notice it" from the road; she said she had no objection to allowing the taller fence within the setback.
Board members focused their deliberations on the variance criteria. Several members said they did not find that the parcel exhibits the exceptional characteristics required under the code and noted that a 6-foot fence may remain on the property line without a variance. Member Robert Kiley moved to deny the variance on the grounds that the first criterion (exceptional physical circumstances) is not met; the motion was seconded and approved by roll-call vote.
The denial leaves the applicant able to pursue compliance through standard setback rules and any applicable floodplain development permit processes, or to pursue other remedies such as recombining parcels or applying for permits that meet existing setback requirements. The docket was closed after the vote.
