application was submitted on July 23, 2025, and a final inspection has not been completed.
The survey revealed that part of the driveway encroaches onto the neighboring property, since the home was
built.
Full deconstruction and reconstruction: approx. $40,000
Partial correction to bring the shed into compliance: approx. $10,000
The concrete slab is not in violation of the setback.
No productive discussions have occurred with neighbors; tensions remain high.
The applicants have offered to plant screening and acknowledged that any redesign would require Architectural
and Historic
Board of Review (AHBR) approval.
The site plan used, was previously submitted to the City.
A 50-foot wetlands buffer on the property limits alternative shed locations.
The pool plumbing is located beneath the concrete slab.
Chair Wagner opened the floor for public comment, beginning with those who received notice.
Mr. Randy Oscarson, 6009 Nicholson Drive:
Questioned whether the shed was reviewed by the AHBR.
Noted the shed does not match the house in appearance.
Expressed concern about the removal of eight trees from the wetlands.
Ms. Coffman confirmed the AHBR reviewed the application.
Ms. Loretta Greer, 5996 Nicholson Drive:
Stated that 32-36 acres of wetlands exist in the area.
Alleged that soil was deposited in the wetlands and that eight mature trees were removed.
Claimed the shed could be relocated elsewhere on the property.
Noted that fencing was only installed after neighbor complaints.
Expressed concern about grading and emphasized the importance of respecting property lines.
Mr. Brian McCue, 5939 Laurawood Lane:
Voiced strong opposition to the variance.
Argued the hardship is self-created and that compliance is the homeowner’s responsibility.
Noted the variance represents a 40% reduction in the required setback.
Warned against setting a precedent of “build first, permit later.”
Emphasized that the variance criteria have not been met, and that zoning protections must be upheld .
Mr. Stegmeier provided additional information regarding the site conditions and project timeline:
The soil brought onto the property was intended for landscaping purposes.
The delay in removing the soil was due to a dispute between Mr. Stegmeier and his landscaper.
Trees that were removed during construction have been replaced.
The delay in installing fencing was attributed to the stop work order.
A grading plan was submitted to the City but has not yet been approved.
Mr. Stegmeier stated that his preferred resolution is for the shed to remain in its current location, with the
possibility of removing the corner that encroaches into the setback.
Chair Wagner reiterated that the issue before the Board is the location of the shed.
The Board and applicant discussed the option of removing a portion of the shed, which would result in exposing
the pool equipment, and will require AHBR approval.
Staff outlined the process should the variance be denied:
Under LDC Section 1212, the applicant may appeal the decision to City Council and the courts.
A revised plan must be submitted to staff.
If compliance is not achieved, the matter would then be referred to the City Prosecutor.
Any changes to the approved shed design would require review and approval by the Architectural and Historic
Board of Review (AHBR).
Mr. Lopez responded by noting:
