Board denies variance for patio cover at 280 Ontario Loop after residents raise permitting and setback concerns

The Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a variance Tuesday for a rear-yard patio cover at 280 Ontario Loop after staff and multiple neighbors said the structure was built closer to the property line than allowed by the Unified Development Ordinance.

Planning staff said the building permit was issued in error with a five-foot rear-yard setback even though the UDO requires a 10-foot setback where no alley exists. Construction on the patio cover reached roughly 60–70% complete before the error was discovered and the town issued a stop-work order on the patio portion.

Saru Passen, director of planning and development, told the board the permit review missed the 10-foot requirement and the building department halted work on the patio when the encroachment was identified. "The building permit for an attached patio cover and a second story balcony enclosure were requested, and the permit was issued with a 5 foot rear yard setback. However ... if there is no alley, the setback should be 10 feet," Passen said.

The homeowner, Nancy Reza (280 Ontario Loop), said the project had HOA approval and that inspections were requested during construction. Reza told the board the patio is about 85% complete and that removing roughly three feet of structure to meet the 10-foot setback would cost an estimated $15,000–$20,000 and require additional architectural and engineering revisions. "We went to the HOA for approval ... then we submitted the site plans to the city," Reza said. "When we turn everything to the city for review and compliance, we haven't done anything without approvals."

Several neighbors opposed the variance at the public hearing, saying the patio materially reduced privacy and exceeded permitted accessory size and height limits. Jovan Michael, who lives directly behind the subject property, said the roof line and gutter extend almost to his fence and described the impact on privacy, noise and perceived safety. "This significantly impacts my privacy," Michael said. He also raised concerns that the structure's wall height and total covered area may exceed limits specified in UDO section 3.04.0.04(a).

Resident Steven Ray, who lives nearby, asked the board to consider that the town's permitting process bears responsibility for allowing construction to proceed to near completion before the error was corrected. "If the town approves the plan that violates the ordinances, then the town, not either neighbor, should bear the responsibility for correcting the mistake," Ray said.

Contractor Humberto Beltran provided a construction estimate to the board, describing the work that would be required to remove and relead roof decking, replace flashing and reset columns and piers; he estimated the corrective work at approximately $15,000–$20,000.

After public comment and staff explanation that the two-story balcony enclosure submitted with the permit is not part of the variance request and that the stop-work applied to the patio cover only, a board member moved to deny the variance. The motion carried unanimously. The chair asked the applicant to work with staff promptly to determine an approach to reach compliance.

The record includes 12 written responses received before and during the hearing: 11 in opposition and 1 in support (responses included addresses when provided; several came from addresses outside the 200-foot notification area). The board directed that staff include the presentation, the application packet, photographs of the structure, and all written responses in the minutes and meeting record.

Notes: The permit was issued in early June 2025; stop-work on the patio was issued in late July 2025; construction progressed to roughly two-thirds complete before enforcement action.