Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants front-setback variance after owner cites contractor error

Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Jasper ยท June 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Jasper Board of Zoning Appeals approved a development-standard variance for a primary structure at 1449 Lynn Drive after petitioner Keith Shrader said a contractor error left the new home short of the 30-foot front setback. The board found practical difficulties and granted the variance by voice vote.

The Jasper Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a primary residence at 1449 Lynn Drive to occupy less than the required 30-foot front setback after the owner said a contractor error produced the encroachment.

Keith Shrader told the board he discovered the footing/placement issue after photographs from his contractor showed the foundation closer to the road than intended. Shrader said he visited neighbors and reported most were unconcerned; he characterized the issue as a practical-difficulty situation arising from construction error and requested relief to avoid tearing out work already performed. "My contractor called me and he was freaking out, man," Shrader said, explaining the request as mitigation of an unintended mistake.

Board members discussed the technical requirement (30-foot minimum front setback) and the petitioner's description of the actual setback shortfall; Shrader described the house as visually in line with a neighboring home and estimated the difference at a few inches to less than a foot in parts. The petitioner reported canvassing neighbors and said he had not received opposition via letters or public comment during the hearing.

A motion to approve the variance under UDO section 16.4.6.C was moved and seconded; the board announced findings that the variance would not injure public health or property values and that strict application of the UDO would result in practical difficulties. The variance was granted by voice vote; the transcript does not provide a roll-call tally.

The board concluded the scheduled docket and moved on to general business. The transcript does not record any additional conditions attached to the variance or a rehearing date.