Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny setback variance after owner cites storm damage and hardship
Summary
Property owner Nancy Guillen sought a variance to keep a 16×10 accessory building 6 feet from the lot line after storm damage and prolonged insurance disputes; planning staff recommended denial and the board rejected the variance in a voice vote after debate about enforcement and hardship.
Property owner Nancy Guillen told the board she suffered a severe storm in February 2023 that destroyed her roof and left her displaced; she said she placed a 12×24 structure on the lot to work and live while pursuing insurance claims and later applied for permits. Guillen said building staff provided a temporary waiver and that moving the 16×10 building would impose substantial hardship owing to steep slopes, underground utilities and site conditions.
"I did not mean to do anything out of malice or rebellion," Guillen said, outlining photographs, permit applications and a waiver she said was issued by county staff. Planning and zoning recommended denial (0–3) because the accessory building was placed after setback rules applied, the county reported several missed deadlines to bring the structure into compliance, and the matter was referred to the county attorney in November 2025. Commissioners debated the balance between the letter of zoning law and individual hardship; a motion to grant the variance failed on a voice vote.
