Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrence board denies variance for 3,200 sq ft barn at 7442 Indian Lake Road
Summary
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a variance request from petitioner Jason Qin to build a 3,200 sq ft accessory barn with a 744 sq ft porch at 7442 Indian Lake Road, citing zoning-scale limits, accessory-area rules and precedent concerns raised by staff and neighbors.
The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously April 21 to deny a variance that would have allowed a 3,200-square-foot accessory barn with a 744-square-foot porch at 7442 Indian Lake Road.
Petitioner Jason Qin told the board the structure would be a "barn that's going to be a hobby shop. It's been a lifelong dream of mine," and said he plans to use it for woodworking, family projects and Boy Scouts merit-badge work rather than as living quarters or a commercial operation. Qin said the parcel is roughly nine acres and argued the ordinance’s method of measuring accessory-structure limits against the main-floor area of the house disadvantages large lots.
City staff pushed back. Renee Rafa, director of public works for the City of Lawrence, said the staff report recommended denial because the proposed accessory building "is 3,200 square ft and it has an additional porch of 744 square ft," and that the cumulative size and scale conflicts with the D2 zoning district’s intent to keep primary structures dominant. Rafa added staff did not find the petitioner had shown that strict application of development standards created a practical difficulty in this case and raised concerns about precedent.
Neighbors’ objections were entered into the record. Staff read letters from Thomas Marks and Jeffrey Ericson that said the total accessory footprint on the property would far exceed the house’s roughly 2,300 square feet, could facilitate commercial activity, and would be inconsistent with the residential character of nearby parcels. Doug Life, a nearby resident who testified in person, said he has lived in the neighborhood for about 30 years and does not foresee drainage or visibility problems but acknowledged concerns among other neighbors.
Board members and staff added up existing accessory buildings and the proposed structure and cited the ordinance’s accessory-area limits: the existing accessory buildings total about 2,925 square feet; adding the proposed barn and porch would raise accessory-area totals to roughly 6,869 square feet compared with a 2,300-square-foot house. A board member referenced the "75% rule" that limits accessory area relative to a primary dwelling’s main-floor living area.
After discussion, the board moved to a vote and the motion to deny the variance passed unanimously. The board’s announcement closed Docket 26 LSV3 and the meeting moved to the next agenda item.
The board did not adopt any conditions permitting a reduced structure at the meeting; staff told the petitioner they were willing to discuss size reductions or a continuance if he wanted to pursue alternatives.
