Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood BZA approves 15‑foot detached accessory structure at Brighthorn
Summary
An acting chair of the Brentwood Board of Zoning Appeals convening the March 17, 2025, meeting approved a request by Mark Liebeskind to build a 221‑square‑foot detached accessory structure at Lot 3507, Brighthorn Cove in the R‑2 zoning district.
An acting chair of the Brentwood Board of Zoning Appeals convening the March 17, 2025, meeting approved a request by Mark Liebeskind to build a 221‑square‑foot detached accessory structure at Lot 3507, Brighthorn Cove in the R‑2 zoning district.
The accessory structure will be constructed of glass and black metal with a stone knee wall to match the existing house and a glass roof. The applicant presented plans and schematics showing the structure sitting on an existing foundation; staff said the proposed height is approximately 15 feet, which brings the request before the board because it exceeds the 12‑foot height threshold for accessory structures.
Staff member Allison said the city received a neighbor’s email in support and a phone inquiry from a nearby resident asking whether homeowners association rules (CC&Rs) would apply. “The city can’t enforce CC&Rs because they’re private documents,” Allison told the board, and she said the applicant confirmed there is no homeowners association for the lot.
Mark Liebeskind told the board the structure is for personal use. “I enjoy gardening, love gardening here in Brentwood, and hope to be doing some gardening in the winter in this structure,” he said.
During the presentation staff noted the proposed structure is under the square‑footage trigger for accessory structures but exceeds the 12‑foot height limit, which is why the item appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals as BZA2502‑001. Staff recommended approval subject to all applicable building codes and the four conditions of approval included in the staff report.
A board member moved to approve the application “as submitted”; another board member seconded. The board voted in favor and the motion passed. The acting chair announced that the motion carried.
The approval is conditioned on compliance with the city’s building codes and the staff conditions listed in the file. Staff said the project will proceed through permitting and inspections per standard city procedures.
