Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves large accessory-structure variance for East Cedar Ridge property
Summary
The board granted a variance allowing an accessory structure larger than the standard 500 sq ft maximum, finding lot size, setbacks and overall lot coverage supported the request. Neighbors raised privacy and drainage concerns; the applicant offered setback changes and landscaping.
The Andover Board granted a variance allowing a homeowner to build a large accessory structure and pool house that exceed the usual 500-square-foot single-structure maximum and the typical 1,000‑square-foot aggregate cap for accessory structures.
City zoning administrator David Westfall told the commission the subject property is roughly 1.37 acres and that, with the proposed addition, the lot coverage would be about 9.7 percent — well under the zoning district’s 30 percent maximum. Staff recommended the variance, noting similar accessory structures are common in the neighborhood.
Applicant Brett Watson (312 E. Cedar Ridge Ct.) said the lot’s size and existing detached garage made the requested structure consistent with neighboring properties and provided design and drainage details. “We’ve worked very hard to satiate [neighbors’] concerns,” Watson said, and offered to increase setbacks, add berming and plant trees at his cost if necessary.
Several neighbors, including Chris Sands of 224 E. Cedar Ridge Court, objected to the proposed location and scale of the structure and to observed drainage problems on adjacent land. Sands said the new structure would sit approximately 15 feet from his primary bedroom and called the proposal an “extreme hardship,” adding, “My husband and I have not slept for 2 weeks.” He also described difficulty planting screening trees because of persistent standing water.
Commissioners reviewed the nine statutory factors for variance consideration, and most members concurred with staff’s findings that strict application of the rules would cause unnecessary hardship given the lot size and that no adverse effects were anticipated. Peter Fox moved to grant the variance for case bza‑v24‑0006; the motion carried on voice vote. A signed resolution will be prepared and filed with the zoning administrator within 45 days; any appeal must be filed in district court within 30 days after filing.
The approval included an understanding that the applicant will work with neighbors to address placement, setback and screening; commissioners noted that certain neighborhood covenant and HOA issues remain separate from the city’s zoning decision.
