Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Deck Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks variance for non‑permitted deck; commission outlines options, tables case to April 16
Summary
Harley Derman, a homeowner on South Dolly Drive, told the Planning & Zoning Commission his rear deck appears to have been built without a permit and falls inside the 25‑foot rear setback; staff described options — rebuild to code, apply for a variance (fee $375) or pursue ordinance changes — and the Board of Adjustment tabled the variance to the April 16 public hearing.
Harley Derman told the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 2 that a deteriorated rear deck at his house, 1605 South Dolly Drive, appears to have been constructed without the required permit and now sits inside the town's rear setback.
"I've got an illegal structure," Derman said, explaining his contractor and a prior inspector appear to have allowed a raised wooden deck where the original permit showed a 12‑by‑4 concrete pad. Derman said he wants to replace the failing deck in the same footprint with composite decking and metal railing.
Staff described three paths. Paul, representing building inspections, said the first option is to obtain a building permit and rebuild to meet current code. He emphasized that a structure that was never permitted cannot be treated as a legal nonconforming use. "If you want to claim it and list it as a bedroom, it has to have the egress requirements by code," Paul said, noting the egress window under the patio door complicates a simple concrete pad replacement.
The second option is applying for a variance from the Board of Adjustment to reduce the rear setback. Planning staff described the variance procedure: the property owner files an application, states a zoning hardship (a narrow, property‑specific constraint), pays an application fee (staff cited $375), and the request is noticed in the newspaper before a hearing. Staff cautioned that demonstrating the statutory hardship standard is the applicant's responsibility.
A third route discussed was a broader code or zoning change (rezoning parcels or amending the setback), but several commissioners said they were reluctant to alter the town's 25‑foot rear setback just to regularize existing decks.
Neighbor Brian Papka told the commission he saw a deck in place when he moved into the neighborhood in 2004, supporting Derman's account that the structure predated recent owners. Staff noted that if a basement room lacks the required egress, the city will document that limitation and owners should not list it as a legal bedroom when selling; the housing use remains with the owner but the city's file will indicate code limitations.
Faced with the technical and legal constraints, the Board of Adjustment formally considered scheduling. A motion was made and seconded to table the variance application and set it for Planning & Zoning's publicly noticed hearing on April 16 so the case can follow the published notice and review process. The motion passed by voice vote; tallies were not specified on the record. Commissioners noted the applicant could appeal a denial to the City Council if needed.
Next steps: Derman may pursue the variance route (application, fee and hardship documentation) or revise his rebuild plans to conform to code and avoid a setback variance. The variance will be heard at the Planning & Zoning public hearing scheduled for April 16; any subsequent council readings would follow the standard public‑notice timeline.
