Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for Blackner house addition after neighbors raise concerns
Summary
The Beaver City Board of Adjustments granted a variance allowing Shane and Carolyn Blackner to extend the west side of their home roughly 27 feet north for an addition; the board cited the lot's long-standing nonconforming status and utility constraints discussed by the applicant.
At the Board of Adjustments meeting, the Beaver City board voted to grant a variance allowing Shane and Carolyn Blackner to extend the west side of their house about 27 feet to add a master bedroom, master bath and laundry area. The applicant's contractor, Mitch Stewart, outlined the project and presented drawings to the board.
The addition would follow the existing carport line and, according to Stewart, would not increase the existing side encroachment beyond what has been historically present. "This is where the carport is...all we're asking is to extend that same line," Stewart said during his presentation. Board members noted the house and carport predate modern zoning ordinances, calling the lot "grandfathered" as a nonconforming lot width.
Board discussion focused on whether the work could be reconfigured to avoid a variance, the location of basement access and underground utilities, and the practical difficulty of shifting the addition without interfering with meters and condensers. Stewart said moving the addition would complicate utility access and basement egress and could undermine the intended layout. One member observed that shifting the addition "would interfere with that underground" utility layout and make the project more difficult.
Chair (speaker 3) explained that staff had inspected the property and that the building department had informally indicated the existing layout was out of compliance; the board heard that a formal written denial from city staff did not appear in the file. After deliberation, Stewart moved to approve the variance; Melanie (speaker 2) seconded and the board granted the request.
The board approved the variance on the basis that the proposed work largely followed an existing, pre‑ordinance condition and because site constraints and utility locations limited practical alternatives. The board also discussed formalizing the city's practice of issuing written denials so applicants and neighbors would have clearer documentation before appeals reach the board.
The Board of Adjustments did not specify conditions tied to the variance on the record at the meeting. Next procedural steps were not detailed during the session; the applicant and city staff will proceed with permit processing under the board's action.
