Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Height Variance Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Costly structural changes raised in continued variance case; hearing officer cites past noncompliance
Summary
In a continued zoning matter, a contractor estimated about $27,000 to modify panels and trusses to meet a more restrictive height limit; county staff and neighbors raised concerns about prior unpermitted work and future compliance, and the hearing officer indicated a reluctance to favor the variance given that history.
At a continued hearing on a separate property, a presenter estimated that modifying the existing structure and reworking roof panels and trusses to comply with a five‑foot reduction in permitted height would add roughly $27,000 in material, labor and hauling costs because existing panels could not be reused without voiding their warranty.
The contractor explained that adjusting the framing and trusses to reduce height would likely eliminate a proposed loft or storage area, and that significant framing changes would be required. County staff said they would examine structural plans and that any change in height would affect usable interior storage.
Neighbors and county staff also noted a record of unpermitted additions at the property; the hearing officer said the history of noncompliance made him reluctant to support the variance and that, if he did not favor the request, the applicants would need a three‑quarters county board vote for approval.
No final county‑board action was recorded in the hearing; the hearing officer expressed concern about rewarding work that began without proper permits and suggested remedying noncompliance rather than approving the variance.
