Moraga Planning Commission continues hearing on 1401 Reimer Drive variance after lengthy debate

MORAGA, Calif. — The Moraga Town Planning Commission on May 20 continued the public hearing on an application for a variance and administrative design review for a 124‑square‑foot addition at 1401 Reimer Drive to the July 1, 2025 meeting, after extensive testimony, technical questions and a split commission on whether staff’s recommended findings could be made.

Staff recommended denial. Planning staff described the proposed 124‑square‑foot addition as encroaching into the town’s 10‑foot side yard setback by between 10 inches and 3 feet 1 inch along about 20 feet 6 inches of length, and into the 15‑foot rear yard setback by between 6 inches and 1 foot 6 inches for roughly 6 feet. The staff report concluded the required variance findings under Government Code Section 65906 could not be made and recommended denial without prejudice.

The applicant, homeowner Julie Lecky, told the commission the addition is intended to enlarge the primary bathroom and closet to allow the couple to age in place and to provide transitional accommodations for her father. “We think the shape of our lot and the placement of our house in the lot constitutes, a hardship, warrant warranting the approval of the variance to build into the setback,” Lecky said. She added that the couple explored alternatives including moving the addition to other sides of the house, but found those options either intrusive, prohibitively expensive or disruptive to the home’s living spaces. The architect for the project appeared and presented floor plans and photos showing the existing bathroom and the proposed 6‑foot addition.

Staff summarized notice and outreach: notices were mailed to 37 nearby properties within 300 feet, three public postings were made, and staff received six letters of support from neighbors. Staff also noted a nearby property at the corner of Shuey Drive and Reimer Drive had previously received a small setback variance (about a 3‑inch side‑yard encroachment and a reduction of a rear setback from 15 feet to 12 feet), but staff distinguished that case as a corner lot with different setback conditions.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on alternatives, neighborhood precedent and the technical findings necessary for a variance. Commissioner Helber and others asked whether the house had been incrementally expanded over time; the applicant said the house’s original footprint largely dates to its 1963 construction except for a small addition behind the garage in 1970 and later permits for a pool and interior work.

Opinions among commissioners diverged. Commissioner Polsky and Commissioner Weber argued the commission should be pragmatic and consider the applicant’s need to age in place, with Polsky noting broader housing pressures that lead homeowners to adapt existing houses. Other commissioners, including Vice Chair Bodie and Commissioner Rain, expressed concern about setting an expansive precedent that would erode setback standards and neighborhood character. Several commissioners suggested the condition of the lot — a cul‑de‑sac parcel with an irregular buildable area and an older house sited to meet a front‑yard requirement — could constitute a special circumstance if the commission so found.

After extended discussion, Vice Chair Bodie moved to continue the item to a future meeting date certain so the commission could consider the matter when a full seven‑member commission is present; the motion passed on the roll call used at the hearing (four in favor, two opposed). Commissioners Helber and Polsky recorded opposition in the minutes. Planning staff said that if the commission provides explicit direction on the findings, staff can prepare a revised resolution for the commission’s consideration; if no specific findings are given, staff said they would need to bring the item back as a noticed public hearing.

Staff cited Government Code Section 65906 when describing the three required variance findings (special circumstances on the property, not a granting of special privilege, and consistency with the intent of the zoning district). Design guideline SFR 2.6 (requiring side‑yard setbacks not be less than zoning minimums) was also referenced in the staff report. The applicant’s Phase 1 work (a 45‑square‑foot bathroom addition and interior modifications) was previously approved administratively, and staff characterized this Phase 2 variance application as the subject of tonight’s hearing.

The commission set a new date certain of July 1, 2025 for continuation of the item, to allow consideration when a full commission is likely to be present. The record includes the applicant’s plans, six neighbor letters of support, staff’s general‑plan consistency analysis, the staff recommendation to deny without prejudice, and the commission’s May 20 direction to continue the matter.