ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FINAL MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 2026
The Routt County Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
with the following members participating: Chairman George Blau, Brian Kelly,
David Hoffman, Todd Pedersen and Lyle Krug. Staff planners Michael Fitz and
Greg Jaeger were also present. Sarah Katherman prepared the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
MINUTES – July 13, 2026
Mr. Kelly moved to approve the minutes of the above cited Board of Adjustment
hearing, as written. Mr. Hoffman seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 –
0, with Mr. Krug abstaining.
ACTIVITY: PL2026044
APPELLANT: Kevin Rohnstock and Claudia Anderson
REQUEST: Adjustment to the property line setback to allow an
addition/reconstruction of the garage
Required: 50 ft. from the property line
Requested: 47.6 ft. from the west property line for an adjustment of
2.4 ft.
LOCATION: 31650 Aspen Ridge Road; located 0.22 miles from the
intersection of Aspen Ridge Road and Agate Creek
Road
Ms. Sally Kavanagh, an architect representing the petitioner, reviewed the
previous hearing. She stated that the original design for the garage expansion
had been based on a survey provided by Four Points Surveying and
Engineering. According to that survey the proposed garage only encroached very
slightly into the setback. She said that during the homeowners’ association
(HOA) review process, which took a very long time, the HOA had decided that it
wanted to revisit the building envelopes in the subdivision. For this process, a
new survey was done by D & D which was approximately 5 ft. different in most
locations from the previous survey and resulted in the proposed garage
encroaching into the setback by 5 ft. 9 in. This is the plan that was originally
presented to the BOA in July. Ms. Kavanaugh said that the design had also
reflected the desires of the HOA to pull the building as far as possible back into
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
2
the hillside. Mr. Rohnstock, the homeowner, said that following the July BOA
meeting they had revised the plan and had moved the proposed garage several
feet to the east and thereby reduced the adjustment request from 5 ft. 9 in. to 2 ft.
6 in.
Mr. Jaeger summarized the BOA discussion from the July meeting, noting that
the BOA had suggested that the proposed building could be moved to the east
and that they would be willing to entertain a reduced adjustment request. Mr.
Jaeger presented diagrams of the original plan and the revised plan and
indicated how the degree of encroachment had been reduced with the new
design. He also provided aerial views of the neighborhood and mapping of the
steep slopes in the area. He noted that the footprint of the proposed garage with
residential space above had not changed, but had been moved several feet to
the east. He stated that the location of the garage presented some engineering
and operational challenges due to snow load and snowmelt concerns, as well as
concerns regarding limiting the available natural light into and views from the
residence. Mr. Jaeger noted that a Secondary Dwelling Unit would not be
allowed on this property, so if plumbing is extended to the residential area above
the garage, the applicant would need to sign a plumbing agreement that would
limit the use of this space. This agreement would be processed in conjunction
with the building permit. Mr. Jaeger presented elevations of the existing garage
and the proposed expanded garage, as well as photos of the site and the
surrounding area. Mr. Jaeger reviewed the criteria that must be met for an
adjustment to be approved and the reasons that staff had determined that the
revised proposal meets those criteria. He reviewed the suggested conditions of
approval.
Mr. Blau commended the petitioner and staff for working on the redesign of the
proposed structure to reduce the adjustment request.
In response to a question from Mr. Krug, Ms. Kavanaugh confirmed that only one
corner of the garage would encroach into the required setback.
Mr. Hoffman asked if the discrepancy between the two surveys had been
resolved. Ms. Kavanaugh stated that the D&D survey had employed newer
technology and had used a different survey corner pin as its basis. Mr. Kelly
noted that some pins are based on an older grid and some on a newer grid. This
problem applies to all of Dakota Ridge, as well as some other areas in the
County.
There was no public comment.
MOTION
Mr. Krug moved to approve item PL20260044, an adjustment of 2.4 feet from the
required property line setback from the west property line, for a setback of 47.6 ft.
This approval is based on the following findings of fact:
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
3
1.Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or an unnecessary and
unreasonable hardship will be imposed on the property owner if the
provisions of this UDC are strictly enforced because there are specific
engineering limitations that require mitigation for safe ingress and egress
to the structures.
2.The requested Adjustment is the minimum deviation necessary to enable
reasonable use of the property. The proposed alteration is as far East as it
can be without causing safety and access issues.
3.The Adjustment is necessary to provide the property with comparable use
rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the
applicable zone district because it is common and customary to have a
garage with storage or accessory space above in residential area.
4.The Adjustment, if granted, will not confer a personal convenience or
special privilege to the applicant because the size and use of the structure
are common in the area, with other lots in the subdivision receiving
Adjustments for similar constraints, making this not out of place in this
subdivision.
5.Circumstances creating the hardship were in existence on the effective
date of the regulations from which an adjustment is requested, or were
created subsequently through no fault of the applicant because it has
been shown historical documentation complexities from the subdivision
contributed to the hardship rather than the applicant's actions.
6.The property for which an Adjustment is requested possesses a site-
specific constraint, such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape
or topography or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition
which does not occur generally in other properties in the same zone
district because this particular property is smaller than most properties in
the same zone district and has limiting developable area due to
topography that does not occur generally on other properties in the same
zone district.
7.The Adjustment, if granted, will not diminish the value, use, or enjoyment
of the adjacent properties, nor curtail desirable light, air, and open space
in the neighborhood, nor change the character of the neighborhood. The
alteration will maintain size and height requirements applicable to the zone
district and use standards. The proposed alteration would be a safe
distance from the road and be sufficiently separated from neighboring
properties.
8.The Adjustment, if granted, will not be directly contrary to the intent and
purpose of this UDC or the Master Plan because Adjustments provide
flexibility for unique properties when strict enforcement of Unified
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
4
Development Code (UDC) setbacks creates unnecessary hardship without
public benefit.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.This approval is specific to the plans submitted in the application. Any
change in footprint, size, height, or site location that increases the level on
non-conformance will be subject to a new application. Minor changes that
do not increase the level of non-conformance can be approved
administratively, without notice
2.All development associated with this Adjustment, including lighting,
signage, utilities, stormwater, access, parking, landscaping/revegetation,
and snow storage, shall comply with the applicable standards in Chapter 3
of the UDC.
Mr. Kelly seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5 – 0, with the Chair voting yes.
ACTIVITY: PL2026043
APPELLANT: Tyson and Ashley Sweetser
REQUEST: Adjustment to the property line setback for an
agricultural outbuilding
Required: 50 ft. from the property line
Requested: 18 ft. from the west property line for an adjustment of 32
ft.
LOCATION: At the west intersection of County Road 69 and Highway
40; located at 11635 County Road 69
Ms. Ashley Sweetser reviewed the history of the property, which was purchased
by Tyson Sweetser’s grandparents in 1979. She stated that she and her husband
purchased the property in 2022. When they applied for a building permit for a
new home it was discovered that several outbuildings were not in conformance
with the required setbacks. Some were determined to be legally non-conforming
and others not. All of the illegal structures were removed except for the
agricultural shed (3-sided pole barn) which is necessary to their agricultural
operation. Ms. Sweetser stated that they had discussed applying for an
adjustment for the shed at that time, but had been strongly discouraged from
doing so by Planning staff, who suggested that an adjustment was unlikely to be
approved. Ms. Sweetser reviewed the process through which they had originally
thought they would have to demolish the end of the shed that encroaches into
setback, but ended up getting approval to only remove the roof from the north
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
5
end, leaving the walls, which were then considered to be an engineered fence.
The remaining structure was determined to be structurally sound. She said that
the roof was removed, but that without the roof the shed did not function well, so
they put the roof back on. This led to the Notice of Violation and the code
enforcement case. She said that they have been working with County staff on a
solution. Ms. Sweetser said that it had been a mistake not to request an
adjustment prior to building the house, and that they regret not having done so
before the roof was removed. She presented photos of the structure with and
without the roof.
Ms. Sweetser presented a diagram of the property with the uses of each area
shaded. She noted that the location of the existing buildings, driveway, circulation
pattern for agricultural equipment, septic system and leach field constrain the
areas available for other uses, without taking away productive hay land. She
noted that although the parcel is small (approximately 7.5 acres) it is
agriculturally productive. She reviewed the agricultural operation that is
conducted on the property. Ms. Sweetser discussed the possible alternative
locations for the shed and provided the reasons that none of them would be
practical, or in some cases even feasible. She emphasized that in order to
function properly, the 3-sided shed must be oriented so that that the back is to
the west, shielding the open bays from the prevailing wind and weather.
Ms. Sweetser stated that Planning staff agrees that criteria #4, #6 and #7 are met
by the request. She added that there have been no complaints about the
structure, the structure does not interfere with road maintenance or plowing, the
neighbors support the adjustment, and many properties in the vicinity have
similar structures to support their small agricultural operations. Ms. Sweetser
added that moving the shed to another location would cause operational
difficulties, reduce the usefulness of the shed, and move the impact elsewhere.
Regarding criteria #1, Ms. Sweetser stated that without the roof, the structure
does not function as a pole barn to protect livestock, hay and equipment, that
relocating the shed would consume productive agricultural land and would
require additional disturbance. She said that having to relocate the shed would
be an unnecessary hardship and would negatively impact their agricultural
operation.
Regarding criteria #2 & #3, Ms. Sweetser stated that removing the roof again is
not an option that is on the table, and did not work when it was tried. She said
any of the alternatives to the current location would create new impacts and no
further encroachment into the setback is being requested. She noted that the
with the roofless walls, the encroachment into the setback was visually the same
as with the roof. Ms. Sweetser said that stock/hay sheds are a common use, and
that many sheds encroach into setbacks throughout the County.
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
6
Regarding criteria #5, Ms. Sweetser stated that the structure was in its current
location when they purchased the property. She said that restoring the roof was
not when the encroachment into the setback began; it began with the
construction of the shed. She acknowledged that the prior owners (Mr.
Sweetser’s grandparents) had built the shed without a permit. She said that they
were under the impression that because the shed was to be used exclusively for
agricultural purposes, and is not served by electricity or plumbing, that it did not
require a permit.
Regarding criteria #8, Ms. Sweetser quoted several policies and sections of the
Routt County Master Plan that strongly support the preservation of agriculture
and rural character. She also noted that the Master Plan encourages the
continuing use and reuse of existing structures.
Ms. Sweetser stated that the least impactful outcome would be for the existing
shed to be allowed to remain where it is. She asked that the BOA approve the
adjustment request with reasonable conditions, if necessary, and allow the shed
to remain in its current location.
Mr. Jaeger reviewed the history of the parcel and the timeline, as previously
discussed by Ms. Sweetser. A detailed account of the dates is provided in the
staff report. Mr. Jaeger presented an aerial view of the site and indicated the
various structures and uses on the property. He also presented a map showing
the steep slopes that encumber a portion of the parcel. He presented and
reviewed the diagram indicating the uses of different parts of the parcel. He
indicated the portion of the shed that encroaches into the setback, and that was
subject to the demolition permit that led to the removal of the roof from the
northern end of the shed. He also presented photos of the site from a variety of
locations, including photos of the shed with and without the roof.
Mr. Jaeger reviewed the criteria that must be met for an adjustment to be
approved and discussed the reasons that staff had determined that criteria #1,
#2, #3, #5, and #8 cannot be supported. A detailed analysis of the criteria is
provided in the staff report. He emphasized that in removing the roof, the
applicant had demonstrated that compliance with the regulations was possible
and added that there is room for the shed to be located elsewhere on the
property.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Jaeger confirmed that parking
campers, trailers, and equipment is allowed in the setback. Mr. Hoffman asked if
the shed could be relocated to the south end of the older shed, where equipment
is currently parked. The camper, trailer, and equipment could then be moved into
the setback. Mr. Sweetser said that this would be possible, but would entail the
hardship of demolition and reconstruction, including additional grading,
excavation, etc.
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
7
Mr. Krug asked about the history of the use of the parcel. Mr. Sweetser reviewed
the history, noting that it had been in continuous agricultural use since 1979. He
stated that his grandfather had constructed the addition onto the shed. He said
that shed is used for livestock, including his children’s 4-H lambs, as well as to
store agricultural equipment and hay. He confirmed that the agricultural operation
on the parcel was small and that both he and his wife have full-time jobs.
Mr. Pedersen asked when the addition to the shed was built. Mr. Jaeger clarified
that the original shed as built in 1990 and the addition that encroaches into the
setback was built sometime between 2009 and 2011. He reviewed the process
through which all elements of a property are reviewed and must be brought into
conformance with the regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit. He
confirmed that if the Sweetser’s had not applied for a building permit, the shed
would not have been flagged for enforcement. In response to a question from Mr.
Pedersen, Ms. Sweetser said that they had not pursued an adjustment for the
shed because Planning staff had strongly discouraged them from doing so. Mr.
Sweetser added that it seemed like an expensive process to go through if they
were just going to be denied.
Mr. Pedersen asked about operational changes that had occurred when the roof
was removed. Mr. Sweetser confirmed that the haying equipment was not
protected, that the hay, which is usually stored in the northern stalls due to the
circulation pattern of equipment, had to be put elsewhere. He added that without
the northern wall, snow blew into and would have accumulated in the rest of the
shed. He noted that he shares the haying equipment with his father, and that it is
important to protect it.
Mr. Pedersen asked about the other outbuildings that had been removed. Mr.
Sweetser described them and said that there was little impact from their removal.
Mr. Kelly stated that he is bothered by applying the 50 ft. setback to agricultural
structures. He offered that barns and sheds have traditionally be located near the
property lines on agricultural properties for a reason: to preserve as much
productive agricultural land as possible. He stated that the County is trying to
preserve agriculture in Routt County, but that this 50 ft. setback regulation does
not reflect this common practice. He noted that many outbuildings are located in
the setbacks throughout the County. Mr. Kelly stated that the strict application of
the setback regulation is punishing people for trying to improve their property. He
acknowledged the tension between compliance with the regulation and the
function of the building, and offered that he was torn regarding this application.
Mr. Kelly stated that many policies of the Master Plan are designed to help
agricultural operations, and suggested that common sense needs to be applied.
He also noted that four letters of support for the adjustment that had been
submitted.
R.C.B.O.A. MINUTES August 10, 2026
8
Mr. Pedersen asked if the equipment needed to run the small haying operation
was the same as what was needed for a larger one. Mr. Sweetser stated that if
was and noted that they have a lot less room for storage on their small property.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Jaeger confirmed that staff had
“reset” the date of the creation of the hardship to the restoration of the roof. He
acknowledged that criteria #5 would have been supportable if the Sweetsers had
applied for an adjustment before removing the roof. He added, however, that in
removing the roof, the applicant had demonstrated that the structure could be
reduced in size without affecting the structural integrity of the remainder of the
shed.
Mr. Hoffman said that his concern is that the applicant had restored the roof
without a permit to do so. He said that this issue needs to be addressed. Ms.
Sweetser said that they have agreed to retroactively apply for a building permit.
Mr. Jaeger confirmed that the applicant would need to obtain either a building or
demolition permit for any modification, or if the structure is allowed to remain.
Mr. Fitz reviewed the discussion that had led to allowing the applicant to remove
only the roof and leave the walls intact. He said that there are no height
restrictions on fences in the AF zone district, so the roofless shed was technically
compliant, albeit silly.
Mr. Blau asked if it would be possible to move the encroaching part of the shed
to