Lucas Board of Adjustments fails to approve variance to allow awning that would make barn larger than house

The Lucas Board of Adjustments rejected a request to allow a 1,400-square-foot roof extension on a barn at 2 Hickory Hill, a change that would have made the property’s accessory structures larger than the principal single-family home. A motion to grant the variance failed 3-2; the board requires four votes to approve a variance.

Keisha Kaye, a consultant with Mission Ridge Consultants, told the board the property sits on a 1.8-acre lot in an R-2 zone and that the proposed awning would add 1,400 square feet to an existing accessory barn. Kaye said the house is 3,308 square feet and the existing barn is 3,290 square feet; with the addition the accessory total would be 4,690 square feet, a barn overage of about 1,382 square feet and a combined accessory overage of about 1,982 square feet. "We're here to request a floor area variance," Kaye said, and she argued the awning would provide shade, help climate control the west-facing facade and would not be impactful to neighbors.

City staff (Hilborn) presented the staff report, noting the permit history (permit issued June 2, 2023) and that the request is inconsistent with zoning ordinance section 14.01.001004, which requires accessory structures to remain subordinate in area, extent and purpose to the principal building. Hilborn told the board that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed accessory building rules in 2024 and declined an amendment to exclude awnings.

Several nearby residents spoke in support. "It looks significantly better with the awning on it than it does with a bare face," said Tony Frum, who lives next door. Lehi Casanova, another neighbor, said the awning allows covered parking and shaded workspace and described the owner’s volunteer work for the community. Daryl Shulman and Robin Schaeffer also urged approval, saying the addition improves the property’s appearance and benefits the street.

Board discussion focused on whether the applicant had shown the special hardship required to justify a variance and on precedent in the neighborhood. Some members noted other lots with large accessory structures or previously granted exceptions; other members said the ordinance’s intent is to keep accessory buildings subordinate to the main residence. After deliberation, a motion to grant the variance was made and seconded but received only three affirmative votes; two members opposed. The chair explained that four affirmative votes are required under local rules, so the motion failed.

Owner Kenneth Cranfield briefly addressed the board after the vote, saying he believed the awning would benefit neighbors and arguing green-space requirements were met. The board closed further comment, moved on to administrative business, approved prior minutes and adjourned at 7:19 p.m.

No change to the code was adopted at the meeting; the variance request was denied for lack of the necessary affirmative votes. Any future change would require either a successful variance at a later meeting or an amendment to the ordinance through the Planning and Zoning Commission and city council.