Board denies variance to convert accessory structure to guest house at 212 Spring Street

The Planning & Zoning Board denied a variance that would have reduced the minimum side-yard setback from the required distance (recorded in staff review) to allow a change of use from an accessory structure to a guest house at 212 Spring Street.

Staff described the request as a proposed conversion of an existing one‑story accessory structure (approximately 480 square feet) to habitable living space. The application sought relief from setback requirements and, depending on final interior dimensions, may also have required additional variances if the unit exceeded local accessory‑unit size limits. Staff reviewed the request under Section 28-29 of the land‑development code and recommended the board consider whether the variance criteria were met.

Neighbors and board members noted a stop‑work order had been placed at the property earlier for unpermitted renovations to the primary house; staff confirmed some work had proceeded without permits. Board members said the structure had been built as an accessory building and that the owner could remove, relocate or rebuild a compliant structure inside the setbacks if they chose to create legal living space. Several members expressed concern that approving conversions of accessory structures to full living units would create precedents allowing intensified use of lots across the city.

Motion and vote: The board voted to deny the variance. Roll call recorded: Matthew Schafer — yes; Charles Pappas — yes; Susan Johns — yes; Mike Davis — yes; Ashley Barnes — yes; Carl Blow — yes. The motion stated the application failed to meet the variance standards specifically that the owner had not demonstrated inability to make reasonable use of the property and that the claimed hardship was created by the existing condition of the accessory structure.

Applicant response: The applicant’s representative said the structure was a well-built concrete block building and described the intended conversion as a single‑story guest house; the applicant clarified no second story was proposed. Staff said the applicant obtained permits for some house renovations after a stop‑work order was issued and that the city had recorded the stop‑work action for earlier unpermitted work.

The board’s denial closes the existing variance application but does not prohibit the owner from proposing a different plan (for example, moving or rebuilding the structure within setbacks) or from seeking permits for an on‑site compliant accessory dwelling unit.