Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment approves variance for pool house at 217 Madison Court

The Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment on Monday approved a variance allowing an attached pool house at 217 Madison Court to encroach on dimensional setback requirements in the town's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), voting unanimously after staff presentation and public comment.

Shuru Passan, Director of Planning and Development Services, told the board the application requested relief from UDO Section 3.05.03 and the residential zoning dimensional chart for an accessory structure connected to the main house. Passan said staff recommended denial because, based on the plans, "staff does not support the variance request given that there is no hardship," and because the applicant could locate a detached structure elsewhere on the lot to meet setback rules.

Passan described the relevant setback figures as presented in the staff report: for the lot's SF-3 designation the report lists front and rear setbacks (as shown to the board) and a 30-foot side-yard requirement for the main house; by contrast, a detached accessory structure would be subject to a 5-foot side-yard setback, a 10-foot rear setback and a separate 20-foot minimum separation from the main house. Passan said the accessory structure shown on the applicant's drawings is connected to the house by a trellis or pergola and therefore is treated as an attached accessory structure and must meet the larger main-house setbacks.

Applicant Ryan Holcomb, who owns 217 Madison Court, and his contractor, Josh Mounts of Journey Home Remodeling, said constraints beyond mere preference informed their placement. Holcomb told the board the rear yard contains a drainage swale that collects runoff from several lots and that moving the structure to the far rear of the lot "would disrupt the drainage" and likely create standing water in his and neighboring yards. Mounts said the house already has a whole-house sprinkler system, adding, "the entire house has sprinklers put in it," as a mitigation point the applicants offered in response to fire-safety separation concerns.

Board members pressed staff and the applicants on alternatives, including detaching the proposed structure to use the lower accessory setbacks or relocating it to the opposite side of the pool and patio so it would be considered detached and comply with the 20-foot separation rule. Several members expressed concern that approving the request could create precedent for future encroachments and that the close proximity of the proposed seating area to the neighboring house could raise noise and privacy issues; the board noted, however, that staff had received no formal objections from neighbors within the required 200-foot notice area.

After discussion the board made and seconded a motion to approve the variance as requested. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The board did not record individual roll-call votes in the public transcript; the chair announced the motion passed unanimously.

The meeting also included routine consent action adopting the March 2025 minutes, and the board accepted staff's request to postpone a scheduled training by the town attorney to the next regular meeting.

Documents and technical details shown to the board included the applicant's site and roof plans indicating a trellis connection between the main house and accessory structure, site photographs of the pool and yard, and staff's setback comparison table. The staff report referenced UDO Section 3.05.03 and state law guidance on variance standards, including the requirement that a variance be supported by an "undue hardship" specific to the property rather than by owner preference.