Board continues Lakeside Drive river-setback request after debate over septic footprint and deck/roof as structure

The Summit County Board of Adjustment continued a river-setback variance request for 2650 Lakeside Drive after an extended hearing that centered on the siting of an alternative septic system and whether an elevated, enclosed deck or roof overhang would create a structural encroachment that runs with the land.

Planner Jennifer described Project 23-193 and explained that the applicant proposes to demolish an existing small dwelling and build a larger house (estimated 2,600–3,000 square feet) with an alternative septic system. Because the alternative septic system requires more space and must be sited to protect the Weber River, the applicant proposed to locate the dwelling roughly 35.5 feet from the high-water mark; the code requires a 100-foot setback.

Architect Brett Bolo said the septic engineer’s design constrains where the house can sit and that the team located the house to preserve usable outdoor space while keeping the septic system as far from the river as feasible. "We did hire a consultant to design the septic system ... we're confident that the scale of the septic system shown is what's required," he told the board.

Board members repeatedly returned to whether the proposed deck — which includes a roof overhang and appears to be elevated more than one foot above grade — should be considered a structure that would run with the land and therefore be covered by any variance. Jennifer explained that at-grade patios (less than 1 foot above grade) may encroach into setbacks, but decks elevated one foot or more plus structural supports and roof overhangs are considered part of the house and must meet setbacks.

Several board members said they found the applicant’s need reasonable but wanted to limit permanent living-space envelope that would sit close to the river; one member suggested the board would be more comfortable if livable interior space stopped at the 50-foot mark while a low, at-grade patio or cantilevered overhang could be considered instead of an enclosed deck. Multiple board members encouraged the applicant to work with staff and contractors to pursue options that would reduce permanent encroachment.

The applicant asked for an opportunity to collaborate with staff on design modifications (lowering the deck below 12 inches, using cantilevered roofs without support posts within the setback, or reducing the footprint) and the board voted unanimously to continue the item to a date selected by the applicant.

Next steps: The applicant will meet with planning and health staff to refine the design and septic siting; the item will return to the board after the applicant submits revised plans or narrows the requested variance.