Board denies setback variance for 225 Peak Street after debate over lot shallowness and stormwater

The Chattanooga Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to reduce side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure at 225 Peak Street, voting 5–3 to reject the applicant's variance. The application, filed by homeowner Dale Schmick, sought a reduction from 5 feet to 2 feet to accommodate a 16-by-16 metal canopy over an outdoor kitchen intended in part to manage stormwater.

Wood, the city's development review planner, opened the case and described the request and submitted materials, including aerial images, site photos and a neighbor letter of support. Alan Jones of Stone Creek Consulting, the applicant's representative, told the board the canopy had been part of the backyard's original stormwater solution and that prior curb work and site elevation changes were intended to move water into the city storm system.

Applicant Dale Schmick told the board the backyard had long been a low point for neighborhood runoff and that the family had already invested in curb improvements and drainage aggregate to address flooding. "When we bought the house, we had no idea it was the collecting bowl for the neighborhood," Schmick said, adding the pergola posts would collect roof runoff and direct it into the property's drainage system instead of letting it flow onto neighbors.

Several board members narrowly focused on the legal standard for a variance. Counsel read the hardship criteria into the record, which require findings such as exceptional topography or conditions specific to the parcel and that the hardship not be self-created. Some members said the lot's shallowness (one member characterized the lot as roughly 33% shallower than neighboring lots) and slope toward Stringer's Ridge supported an exceptional-condition argument; other members said the condition was created when the builder platted and sold the lot and questioned whether the owner's subsequent installation of a pool and kitchen pad undermined a claim the hardship was not owner-created.

During deliberations a motion to approve the variance contingent on a boundary survey failed for lack of a majority. The board then took a motion to deny the application; after discussion, the motion to deny passed 5–3. The chair announced the motion to deny was approved and the application was removed from the agenda.

The denial leaves the applicant the option to modify the proposal and return or to wait for any future procedural remedies; no further formal action on this application was recorded at the meeting.