Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Espinals’ request to legalize existing accessory dwelling after code enforcement flagged unpermitted work
Summary
Staff said an accessory structure on the Espinals’ property was flagged by code enforcement and that staff could not find when it was converted; the applicants said they bought the property 'as is' in 2016 and sought setback variances to legalize the unit. Neighbors described expansions, cameras and noise and urged denial.
Jared Follin, a development‑services planner, said the accessory dwelling on the Espinal property was identified by code enforcement for failing to meet required setbacks and that prior renovations lacked a residential building alteration permit. Staff could not determine exactly when the structure was constructed or converted, but aerial photographs show the building present at least as far back as 2014. The application requests side‑yard relief of 2.1 feet (resulting in a 5.4‑ft side setback) and a rear‑yard variance of 22 feet (resulting in a 3‑ft rear setback).
William and Rosa Espinal told the hearing officer they bought the house in 2016 and believed the accessory structure existed at that time; they said the building had power and water and that they have since renovated the bathroom and roof and are seeking to regularize the structure. The officer asked whether anyone lived in the accessory structure; the Espinals said no one currently lives there. The officer pressed whether alternative solutions—tearing down the accessory building, moving the RV, or other placements—were feasible; the applicants said site constraints (septic field, lot configuration and side setbacks) limited options and that cost prevents demolition or relocation.
Neighbors Brenda Noser Lechire and Amanda Alfaro opposed the variance. Noser Lechire said the structure had been significantly enlarged in recent years, is taller than an original shed, appears to have an HVAC mini‑split and cameras that point toward adjacent yards, and that there is a history of code‑compliance complaints at the property. Alfaro said motion‑sensor lights and an AC unit have led her to believe someone may be living in the structure; both neighbors urged denial to preserve consistent enforcement in the neighborhood.
The Espinals apologized for any neighbor concerns, said they had applied for necessary permits for work in progress, and offered to relocate or adjust cameras if they bother neighbors. The hearing officer closed the public hearing on this item; no decision was announced.
