Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies variance for shop at N 4090 E, citing self-imposed hardship
Summary
The commission voted 4–2 to deny VAR26-0003, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate undue hardship and that the proposed 26-foot shop could be reconfigured to meet setbacks.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission denied VAR26-0003 on March 18, 2026, after concluding the application did not meet the county’s hardship standard. Joel Johnson proposed a 12-foot setback where 22 feet was required for a 26-foot-tall shop on a 1.1-acre lot off N 4090 E in Rocky Mountain Estates; he submitted neighborhood letters of support and said he aligned the shop with his house for aesthetics and safety.
Johnson told the commission he had already paid a deposit on the building and that the back of the house included a septic drain field that limited siting options. He said he collected letters from neighbors indicating no objection and that the closest neighbor would still be roughly 100 feet away from the structure.
Commissioners questioned whether the hardship was self-imposed by the applicant’s chosen building size and placement. Commissioner Warren Albertson said the hardship “seems to be self-imposed” and urged caution about creating precedent; Commissioner Milton Ollerton raised the same point about the application’s ability to meet criteria under Section 112-98. Chairman Michael Clark and others noted alternatives such as shifting the structure, though commissioners also observed that shifts might not fully comply with the ordinance. A motion to approve (moved by Commissioner Sean Priest) failed; Commissioner Lacy Barney then moved to deny VAR26-0003 on the basis that it did not meet Jefferson County Code Sec. 112-98; Commissioner Tom Barry seconded. The denial passed 4–2 (Barry, Barney, Albertson, Arnell for denial; Priest, Arnold opposed).
The denial was based on the commission’s finding that the application did not meet the statutory hardship criteria; the applicant may revise and reapply or propose a facility with reduced height or altered placement at a later date.
