Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose front‑yard garage variance; applicant cites triangular‑lot hardship
Summary
Applicant Joe Nipper requested a 13‑ft variance to allow a 12‑ft front‑yard setback for a 24×30 garage; county staff noted the lot's triangular shape and some site constraints, neighbors raised views, precedent and safety concerns, and the hearing examiner closed the record and will forward a recommendation to the county commissioners.
At a Kootenai County hearing, applicant Joe Nipper sought Variance 25‑0018 — a 13‑foot variance to reduce the 25‑foot front setback to 12 feet for a proposed two‑car garage (approximately 24 by 30 feet). County development staff Blake Setter described the lot as a rare triangular parcel with slope constraints and told the hearing that multiple neighbors had submitted opposition while two submissions supported the request.
Nipper told the hearing the lot's triangular geometry and topography created an undue hardship and that the proposed garage would be designed to match the house and 'blend in' with neighborhood aesthetics. He said Cintech Engineering had been hired to prepare stormwater work and that the structure would primarily be used to store a vehicle and a trailer. "It's a normal garage that will maintain the existing aesthetics in the neighborhood and will blend in with our home," Nipper said.
Neighbors voiced strong objections at the public hearing. Michael Chris, who lives next door, said the front‑yard placement would "completely destroy our view" of the Russian River mountain and sunset and described extensive landscaping that would be affected. Troy McCollum raised concerns about setting precedent, potential sight‑line and safety issues on the curve of Summit Drive (pedestrians, children, delivery trucks and trailers), and stormwater risks tied to the slope. Several neighbors noted an HOA architectural committee that generally requires accessory structures to be located to the rear of properties.
Blake Setter, county development staff, said the triangular lot and slope constitute site constraints and observed that placing the accessory structure in an alternative location would require more excavation and retaining walls; he described those factors as supportive of a hardship finding in staff analysis. Supporters at the hearing said a similar variance approved in 2000 had not produced negative effects.
Hearing Examiner Carl Grandrath said he had sufficient information in the file to prepare a written recommendation. He closed the public record for Variance 25‑0018; the recommendation will be forwarded to the Kootenai County commissioners, who will make the final decision.
