Lucas Board of Adjustments denies variance for 2 Indian Trail accessory building

The Lucas Board of Adjustments voted to deny a variance request from Paula Alford for her property at 2 Indian Trail, rejecting two related exceptions: a reduction of the required 20-foot rear-yard setback to 5 feet and permission for accessory structures to exceed the square footage of the principal dwelling.

City Development Manager Joe Hilborn told the board staff had received a site plan prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the building sits about 5 feet from the property line and that the application asked for relief from City Code 14.04.304(3)(2) (rear-yard setback) and the accessory-building rules in the code for subordinate area and volume. "She has submitted a site plan showing that the building is 5 feet from the property line," Hilborn said during his presentation.

During public comment, neighbor Dawn Pemberton said her property backs the Alford lot and provided measurements she said demonstrate close proximity: "From my measurements, the Alford building wall to my fence is 53 inches, which is 4 feet 5 inches," she told the board, and she asserted several accessory structures on the lot were constructed without permits. Pemberton also said the large two-story accessory building overlooks her backyard and conflicts with neighborhood character.

Applicant Paula Alford responded that some structures predated her purchase and that she brought drawings to the City when she bought the property. "We have been there, that fence, the 8-foot fence has been there. Actually we brought a drawing to the City of Lucas when we first moved there or first bought the property," Alford said, and she invited measurement verification, saying the utility area is "actually 6 feet, not 5 feet."

A supporting speaker, Derek Fercini, said he works for the applicant's small business and that the variances bear on his livelihood. "I'm for these variances because it's kind of my livelihood," he said.

In deliberations, a board member asked whether the public utility easement is actively used by any utility company; Hilborn said the easement is for public use and could be used by electric or other utilities and that staff had no record establishing current active use. Hilborn reiterated that staff's survey and site plan showed the structure outside the easement.

Chair Tom Redmond moved to deny both variance requests, saying the two requests were in violation of the city's ordinances; a board member seconded the motion. The motion was approved and the board denied the variance(s). The record shows the board required a unanimous vote when only four voting members were present; the motion was made and approved by the board (final voice vote recorded as approved).

After the variance decision, the board returned to regular business, approved the minutes of the March 26, 2025 meeting by voice vote, and adjourned at 6:54 p.m.

What happens next: the minutes will reflect the denial and the applicant may pursue any city-specified appeal or compliance route; the board did not record any direction to staff to take further action on this file during the meeting.