Clayton Board of Adjustment — March 5: A rear-yard porch variance falls one vote short
A homeowner's request to build a screened porch within the rear setback at 6420 Ellenwood won a 3-2 majority — but a zoning variance needs four votes, so the board denied it.
What happened
The Clayton Board of Adjustment met on Thursday, March 5 for a single substantive item: a homeowner's request to build a three-season porch closer to her rear property line than the zoning code allows. The owner of 6420 Ellenwood asked for an 11-foot variance from the required 30-foot rear-yard setback in the city's R-2 single-family district. After a sworn hearing that turned on whether her shallow lot amounts to a legal hardship, the board voted 3-2 in favor — but a variance requires four affirmative votes, so the motion did not carry. The request was effectively denied even though a majority of the members present supported it.
What the board decided
- On the only application before it, the board took up the homeowner's appeal for an 11-foot variance from the 30-foot rear-yard setback (Section 405.1900.A.2 of the R-2 district) at 6420 Ellenwood. Liza Streett moved to approve and Lee Hanson seconded, but the motion did not carry — three votes in favor, two opposed, short of the four affirmative votes a variance requires.
- The board also approved the minutes of its November 6, 2025 meeting on a motion by Liza Streett, seconded by Lee Hanson.
Who was there
Chairman Rick Bliss called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m., with members Liza Streett, Lee Hanson, Jason Lehtman and Anna Etzkorn (who joined online). City planner Ryan Helle, planning technician Thomas Morgan, City Attorney Kevin O'Keefe and court reporter Rebecca Brewer also attended. The chair noted at the outset that four votes in favor are required to grant a variance — the rule that decided the night, since only three of the five members present supported the request.
What they debated
After the court reporter swore in those wishing to speak and the city attorney entered the zoning code and the application into the record, the homeowner made her case. She told the board she has one of the two shallowest lots in her subdivision, and that the porch would sit on the footprint of her existing deck, with clear sides, no solid walls, and no impact on light, air or her neighbors' views. A retired realtor, she said the screened porch would let her use the small backyard far more of the year.
The hearing turned on the legal test the board must apply. Members and the city attorney pressed whether a shallow lot and a desire for an enclosed porch amount to a genuine hardship — the standard state law requires a variance to satisfy, rather than a preference. The city attorney framed the question for the board:
shall this applicant be allowed not to follow the law and to have the law unto themselves for this property— March 5, 2026 — Meeting Transcript [#q67d52649]
Staff added a newer measure to the discussion. Planner Ryan Helle explained floor-area ratio — how much building sits on a lot — a metric the city began using after its recent comprehensive plan, and noted the property is average in size but high in floor-area ratio. The staff observation was that granting the variance would not harm light or air between the houses, but would depart from the intent of the setback rule by adding massing beyond the setback line. With the question of hardship unresolved, the motion to grant fell one vote short.
In context
The outcome shows how Clayton's zoning board works in practice. It is not a design jury weighing whether a project is attractive or reasonable; under state law it may grant relief only where strict enforcement of the code imposes a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that goes to the reasonable use of the property. And because four affirmative votes are required to grant a variance, an application can command a majority of the members present and still be denied — which is exactly what happened to the Ellenwood porch.
Public comments
Because a variance hearing is a sworn proceeding rather than an open-forum comment period, the public participation came through the applicant. The owner testified under oath and told the board that the two neighbors most affected by the porch had each submitted letters in support. The record shows no testimony in opposition before the board closed the hearing and voted.