Yukon Board of Adjustments denies variance for oversized accessory structure at 204 Ash Avenue

The Yukon Board of Adjustments on an evening vote denied a variance request from Rhonda Smith for an oversized accessory structure at 204 Ash Avenue, concluding the application did not meet the board’s required variance criteria.

The denial followed Smith’s testimony that she purchased and placed a prefabricated building on the property to provide safe vehicle storage and a small work area for her daughter, who is hearing impaired. "She is hearing impaired... she wears cochlear implants," Rhonda Smith said, describing the safety reasons for on-site vehicle storage. Smith said she had not obtained a permit before the structure was delivered because of illness and a city office closure, and that the interior is not finished and there are no electrical or plumbing connections.

City staff told the board the Unified Development Code treats detached garages as accessory structures and applies the accessory-structure limits: either 4% of the lot area or 10% of the primary structure’s area, whichever is greater, and that there is no separate allowance for a detached garage. Staff noted the lot is approximately 6,998 square feet and that a conforming accessory structure would be about 280 square feet under the cited percentages; the applicant’s structure measures roughly 480 square feet and therefore exceeds the code limits.

Neighbors urged denial. One resident, identified in the record as Swift, said he was concerned the building looked and could function as an additional dwelling unit, citing an exterior heating/cooling unit as evidence. "This is not a garage," Swift said, urging removal. Another neighbor, Joe Horn, also opposed the structure’s size and placement.

During deliberations a board member said the hardship appeared to be self-imposed and that the lot’s size and topography were not extraordinary compared with surrounding properties. The board member moved to deny the variance request, the motion was seconded, and the board called the vote. Members on the record (Floyd, Sharp, Conine) were recorded as voting to deny; the board denied the variance.

After the vote, the applicant asked how long she would have to remove or sell the structure. Staff said the code-enforcement office would send a formal notice (approximately a 30-day letter) and that the applicant would be scheduled for an administrative hearing with the city manager to determine the specific timeline and next steps.

The board’s stated reasoning focused on the code’s square-footage limits for accessory structures and a conclusion that the situation did not meet the standard for extraordinary or exceptional property conditions that would justify a variance.

The meeting record shows the board concluded no variance was appropriate and moved on to subsequent agenda items; staff will follow up with formal enforcement correspondence and an administrative process to set a compliance deadline.