Appeals commission denies variance for accessory building at 5687 South Lawson Street

The Littleton Appeals and Adjustment Commission voted to deny a variance that would have legalized a recently built addition to an accessory structure at 5687 South Lawson Street.

The proposal, filed as AAC Resolution 02 2026, sought to reduce the standard five‑foot setback for accessory buildings to 2.6 feet along the north property line and 1.3 feet along the west property line. City senior planner Sarah told commissioners the addition had been constructed before permits were obtained and that staff found the application met three of the six required variance criteria but not all of them; for that reason staff recommended denial.

Neighbors and other public commenters urged denial. Stu Maher, who identified himself as a resident at 5645 South Crocker Street and a former planning commissioner, argued the enlarged accessory area amounted to a “de facto commercial use” in a residential alley and said granting a variance would weaken historic‑district protections. Sally Bertoli told the commission it was “not right to reward people for saying, oh, we can ignore the historic district, we can ignore the rules, and we’ll know that we can get away with it because we already did it.”

Applicant Michael Parks said the addition is storage only—"No cars, no power in it, no nothing. Just shelves"—and explained he built the structure after having the property surveyed and after receiving a red tag roughly a year earlier. Parks said he installed concrete footers and a slab and that moving the walls now would require a full teardown.

Commissioners debated the code criteria at length, focusing on whether the condition created an undue hardship, whether the variance represented the minimum necessary accommodation, and whether approval would convey a special privilege compared with neighboring properties that complied with the five‑foot setback. Commissioners noted that many accessory structures in the Lawson Heights Historic District predate current zoning, but differed on whether that fact justified approving a post‑construction variance. One commissioner said the record left them 50/50 on undue hardship; another said they were persuaded by staff that not all criteria were met.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the staff‑drafted resolution (the motion was edited on the floor to add the specific address). The clerk announced the vote result as “zero in favor with three opposed.” The transcript names Commissioner Gooch, Tim LeVier, and Commissioner Frederick as voting no; the clerk’s announcement did not record votes by the other members in the transcript excerpt.

Because the motion failed, the applicant was informed the options would be to bring the addition into compliance by shifting it to meet the five‑foot setbacks or to remove the addition. Staff also noted that if the addition were to remain, building‑permit work would still be required to address safety issues associated with its proximity to property lines.

The commission then moved to other routine business, and the meeting adjourned at about 7:38 p.m.