Auburn zoning board denies variance for large accessory structure at 732 Mercer Circle

The Board of Zoning Adjustment on Nov. 5 denied a variance request (BZ2025010) that would have allowed accessory structures to exceed 50% of the primary dwelling’s floor area at 732 Mercer Circle.

Planning staff said the applicant proposed a mainly two-story woodworking garage of about 960 square feet in the backyard and that the property is zoned Corridor Redevelopment District East (CRDE). Staff and the applicant provided differing measurements during the hearing: the original application listed the primary structure at about 1,100 square feet; a subsequent survey provided by the applicant adjusted that figure to about 1,246 square feet after removing a screened porch from heated-floor calculations. Staff explained that with the existing shed on the lot and the proposed garage the combined accessory area would exceed the zoning allowance and that multiple site-plan, setback and impervious-surface issues had not been resolved in the application packet.

Applicant Leslie Edwards testified that the house is a longtime family home built in 1958, that the family has used the property for decades and that they need a secure, weather-protected workspace for tools and a home office. Edwards said the backyard is hidden by mature trees and shrubbery and that the current small house footprint makes other options (tearing down and rebuilding, or a large attached addition) unattractive for character and cost reasons. Edwards said the existing small shed would be moved or removed if the larger structure were built.

Board members raised two central concerns. First, several said the two-story design and interior layout appeared similar to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and could be retrofitted in future to provide independent living space, which would carry additional parking and density implications under CRDE. Second, members and staff noted the applicant had not fully resolved site-plan technicalities — setbacks, allowable accessory separation from other structures, impervious-surface calculations, and whether the accessory structure would exceed the height or size of the primary structure.

Staff recommended the applicant work with planning and building-permit staff to explore alternatives that might not require a variance, including a detached single-story accessory building with a smaller footprint, an attached addition to the primary residence (with full building-plan review), or pursuing a permitted multi-dwelling pathway under CRDE if an additional dwelling unit is intended. The board voted on a motion to approve the variance; the motion failed on a roll-call vote: Will Faulkner — No; Mary Boyd — No; Amy Sorrells — No; Leticia Smith — No; Marty Heffern — No. The variance was denied.

Planning staff advised the applicant to meet with staff to review alternative design options and permitting pathways before resubmitting any formal application.