Zoning board approves variance to allow applicant’s accessory structure despite staff objection

At its meeting, the Leon Valley Zoning Board of Adjustments approved a variance to allow an accessory structure to encroach on a reverse-frontage setback for a corner lot listed in the public record as 6206 Check Range Street. The applicant, Evan B., sought permission to install an approximately 380-square-foot shed behind a privacy fence and said alternatives would require removing heritage trees.

The board’s planning staff reviewed the application and recommended denial, concluding the hardship was self-imposed and that reasonable use of the property was possible without the variance. Staff cited the zoning code’s variance criteria in Section 15.02.722.B and argued the owner had not shown the kind of unique, non-self-imposed hardship required for relief.

Evan B., the property owner and applicant, circulated a petition and told the board he had collected six onsite signatures plus one mailed letter in favor out of 27 notices sent within 200 feet of the property. He said city code amendments in 2023 allowing accessory structures in side yards should be read alongside the tree-preservation ordinance, and that the least-destructive path to the shed’s placement was to grant the variance rather than remove protected trees. "This variance is the very spirit of that," he told the board, arguing the request balanced the two code aims.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant about alternatives and dates referenced in the applicant’s history of code changes. Staff reiterated its finding that, under the city’s criteria, the hardship appeared self-imposed and that other locations on the lot could accommodate the structure without violating reverse-frontage restrictions. Neighbors who spoke during discussion said removing trees would risk drainage and erosion; one resident said, "That's my biggest fear for my family," when asked about the potential removal of large trees.

After discussion the board member moved "to approve the variance as requested," the motion was seconded and the board approved the variance by voice vote described in the record as a supermajority; the transcript does not provide an exact numerical tally. The board’s decision directs that the applicant may proceed consistent with the variance approval and any standard permitting and tree-preservation requirements.

The variance request referenced city zoning ordinance provisions for reverse-frontage setbacks and the zoning variance criteria (Section 15.02.722.B). The record filed with staff lists the property as part of the Canfield 2 subdivision and reports the lot at approximately 0.257 acres. The application materials in the record describe a proposed shed of about 380 square feet (stated by the applicant); that number appears in the meeting transcript and in the applicant’s presentation.

The board did not record additional formal conditions in the transcript. The meeting concluded with routine housekeeping and adjournment. If the applicant proceeds with building, he must still comply with permitting, tree-preservation regulations and any required inspections.