Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues variance request for large accessory building at Northeast 63rd Street
Summary
An applicant seeking multiple variances for an unpermitted accessory structure at 5705 Northeast 63rd Street was given more time to pursue remedies. The Board of Adjustment continued the case to July 16, 2026, after staff and members said the structure’s size, height, materials and setbacks are substantially nonconforming.
The Board of Adjustment continued a request for multiple variances for an existing accessory structure at 5705 Northeast 63rd Street to its July 16, 2026 meeting.
Applicant Aiden Garcia told the board the building was purchased and sited on his lot after he was told no permit was required. “My name is Aiden Garcia. I live in 5705 Northeast 63rd and I did put an application for the variance,” he said, describing the seller’s representations and the difficulty of moving the structure. Planning staff told the board inspectors found the structure’s size exceeded the allowed maximum and that setbacks were too close to the property line; staff added height and material variances after a fuller code review.
Board members repeatedly described the scope of the nonconformities as a reason to deny outright, saying the structure is several measures beyond what the code allows. One member noted the structure sits about six feet from one lot line and four and a half feet from another when the required setbacks are 25 feet. Staff said moving the building into conformance would be costly and that the seller who installed it might be pursued in small claims or other legal avenues.
The board discussed options including denial, short deferrals, and a conditional continuance to allow the applicant to pursue legal remedies or to attempt to relocate the structure. Several members said the applicant should seek legal representation to compel the installer to pay remedial costs. Staff said leaving the case open would preserve the applicant’s ability to return without filing a new application, while a denial would require a six‑month wait to reapply.
Ultimately the board voted to continue the case to the July 16, 2026 meeting, giving Garcia time to pursue legal options and to try to make the structure more compliant. The board cautioned Garcia that utilities could be affected if an enforcement case is opened and urged him to document any legal steps he takes.
Next step: the applicant returns July 16 with evidence of efforts to move or otherwise remedy the structure, or with documentation of legal action against the seller/installer.
