Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves fitness-center setback encroachment with one-year condition after drainage concerns
Summary
The Washington Board approved a request allowing Torres Real Estate to place a proposed 50-by-80-foot Elevate Wellness fitness center up to 10 feet into the rear setback, adding a condition that the variance expire after one calendar year if construction has not begun and requiring state and stormwater reviews after neighbors raised runoff and tree-loss concerns.
The Washington Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a rear-yard encroachment that would let Torres Real Estate site a proposed 50-by-80-foot Elevate Wellness fitness center up to 10 feet into the required rear setback, adding a condition that the variance expire after one calendar year if substantial construction has not started.
Dennis Nelson, who said he was appearing on behalf of the applicant, summarized the request: "What they're wanting to do is to construct a 50 by 80 foot building to be used as a fitness center," and said the facility would focus on personal training and scheduled classes rather than an open-gym format. Nelson also told the board that final building dimensions might be reduced depending on the planning outcome and that detailed drainage plans would follow later design work.
Neighbors pressed the board on water-management and privacy. Louis Sykes, who said he lives directly behind the proposed site, told the board he opposed giving up the setback and raised concerns that a large building could change water runoff patterns and affect trees on adjacent properties: "We're really not interested in, we don't really want to give up our setback," Sykes said.
Board members and staff discussed project constraints posed by the lot's triangular shape and state requirements for stormwater detention; staff noted that the project would also need state review and that drainage calculations must meet state and city standards. The board adopted a stipulation limiting the variance to the specific project and to a calendar year unless the applicant begins work, and it required that drainage and permitting progress through the proper state and city channels before final local permitting.
Why it matters: the property sits at a commercial–residential edge; neighbors warned that an improperly handled build could increase runoff toward nearby yards. The board’s condition—tying the variance to project commencement and adding drainage review—was framed by members as a way to allow redevelopment while preserving long-term protections for neighbors.
The motion to approve, including the calendar-year stipulation and the drainage/permitting requirements, passed on the board's roll call. The board also noted that if the building is not started within the calendar year the variance would be void and any future project would require a new application and public review.
