Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves setback variance for guest house at 111 Washington Street
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board approved a variance reducing the front yard setback at 111 Washington Street from 15 feet to 5 feet and clarifying side‑yard eave measurement to allow a new ~450 sq ft guest house; neighbors raised concerns over flooding, fences and eaves.
The Planning & Zoning Board voted to approve PZB application 20260059, granting a variance that reduces the front yard setback at 111 Washington Street from 15 feet to 5 feet and allows the accessory building’s eaves to extend into the side setback (the wall will meet the 4.6‑foot side setback while the eaves overhang by about 16 inches). Staff recommended approval, saying the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the pattern of development along the block.
At the meeting staff summarized the request and noted the house siting is consistent with neighboring properties, many of which already place accessory structures close to Washington Street and back up to Lake Maria Sanchez. James Whitehouse, who identified himself as representing the Santiago family at 111 Washington Street, told the board the proposed ~450‑square‑foot guest house meets other code requirements and that elevating the addition is necessary because of the low lot elevation.
Several neighbors spoke during public comment. One nearby homeowner said the property owners do not live locally and asked whether the elevation issues cited at an earlier meeting still applied. Another resident who lives next door asked for clarification about how close the new structure would sit to the fence line; Whitehouse replied the building wall would meet the setback and only the eaves would extend into it.
Board members questioned impervious surface calculations and whether the addition would push lot coverage beyond allowed limits. The applicant provided footprint figures and asserted proposed coverage (about 33–34%) stays within the permitted maximum. After discussion about historic context, elevation, parking and the staff report, board member Mike Davis moved to approve the variance and cited the home’s 1939 construction, its unusual lot orientation and the storm drain location as supporting factors. The motion passed on a roll call vote.
The board’s action applies only to the setback variances before it; any other required permits, inspections or changes to the building footprint remain subject to code review. The applicant acknowledged that other approvals (impervious surface calculations, building permits and any required plan revisions) must still be satisfied.
