Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversized Garage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for oversized detached garage after finding self-created hardship
Summary
The Board denied a variance request from Javier Feliciano for an oversized detached garage (proposed 960 sq ft; code allows 676 sq ft), finding the structure was built without a permit and that the applicant did not demonstrate unique practical difficulties; denial was unanimous.
The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals unanimously denied a variance request from Javier Feliciano for an oversized detached garage at a property on Rosebell Avenue, after concluding the applicant had not demonstrated the practical difficulties required to overcome zoning limits.
Staff presented the application history: a garage addition was constructed without a permit and a citation was issued in April 2024. Subsequent permit submittals and two prior appearances before the board (July and December 2024) resulted in denials or requests to reduce the proposed building. The current application asked for a 284-square-foot variance (proposed 960 sq ft; code permits 676 sq ft under section 1294.03(1)). Staff noted the applicant had reduced the size incrementally but not substantially since the last hearing.
Board members asked the applicant for concrete topographical or lot-layout difficulties that would justify the variance; the applicant cited the lot layout and an intent to accommodate a tow truck but did not provide evidence of a unique site constraint. The board discussed that the street-vacation or lot-consolidation issues the applicant referenced would be separate council actions and would not change the variance calculation at this board. The law director reminded members that the variance request must be evaluated on the Duncan factors and on the evidence presented.
The board found the condition to be largely self-created because the garage was constructed without required permits and because the applicant purchased the property knowing the zoning conditions. At the roll call on a motion to deny, the clerk read votes recorded as yes to deny by Krautman (Yes), Weaver (Yes), Toth (Yes, with comment), and Masterson (Yes); the motion to deny carried unanimously. The board advised the applicant to seek legal counsel and to pursue other remedies (permitting modifications or property-alteration paths) if he wished to change the structure.
