The Columbia City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance at its December meeting to allow a covered patio to be attached to a single-family residence at the property transcribed as "857 Abelia Bridal," reducing the required rear-yard setback in the RSF-2 district from 10 feet to 3 feet.

The request, introduced by zoning administrator Andrew Livinggood, would reduce the rear setback to 3 feet — "which would be a variance of 70%," he said during the board's summary of the case. Applicants Jason and Emily Luther told the board the change would let them extend the home’s roofline to create an integrated, covered patio that functions with the existing garage and interior circulation.

The applicants said lot geometry and existing site constraints limited alternatives. "What we're proposing is just to follow the back line of where the garage is now," applicant Jason Luther said, describing an approach intended to match rooflines and preserve neighborhood character. He told the board the lot is approximately 11,800 square feet and the existing house about 3,600 square feet; Livinggood had summarized the RSF-2 setback requirement and the applicants' requested dimension.

Luther also reported that Dominion has an easement along the side of the property carrying a neighborhood power line, which the Luthers said restricted side-yard buildable area and complicated alternatives. The applicant said they sought but could not obtain a variance or exception from Dominion; he referenced regulatory constraints in explaining why the utility would not accommodate an alternate layout.

Staff noted a prior zoning action: the board in 2007 granted a variance to connect a once-detached garage to the house, a change that placed the garage within the current required setback. A board member asked staff to confirm that history; Livinggood confirmed the 2007 approval to permit the existing adjoinment, and board discussion referenced that earlier decision when evaluating whether special circumstances exist for the new variance.

After board discussion about consistency with variance criteria and the property's uniquely situated conditions, an unidentified member moved to approve the applicant's variance request "subject to staff comments," and another member seconded. The board approved the motion by voice vote and the variance was carried.

Votes at a glance
- Approval of minutes (11/06/2025): Approved on the consent agenda (roll-call details not specified in the transcript).
- Variance (transcribed as "variance 20 25 0 0 3 1 - v") for 857 Abelia Bridal: Approved after board discussion; motion carried by voice vote (tally not specified).
- 2026 Board meeting calendar (first Thursday of each month): Approved by voice vote.

What happens next
The board approved the variance and other routine items and adjourned; the transcript does not record additional conditions, a written roll-call vote, or a schedule for permit issuance, so any administrative follow-up will proceed under staff review and the normal permitting process.

Sources and limitations
This article is based solely on the board meeting transcript. Where the transcript provided a figure or name, it was used verbatim (for example, the case was transcribed as "857 Abelia Bridal"). The transcript did not include a recorded roll-call tally for the recorded votes or a specific hearing date beyond "the December meeting," and the permit-processing steps were not specified.