Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves reduced‑setback variances for accessory structure at 2503 Norman Avenue in 3‑2 vote
Summary
After testimony from property owner James Allen and a staff report that could not recommend approval, the Planning & Zoning Board approved variances to reduce setbacks for an accessory structure at 2503 Norman Avenue by a 3‑2 vote. Staff emphasized required permitting and inspections remain.
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning & Zoning Board approved variance requests allowing a detached accessory structure at 2503 Norman Avenue to remain with reduced setbacks after a split 3‑2 vote.
City planning staff told the board the structure did not meet required setbacks and that, based on staff measurements, the separation between the house and the accessory building was 46.5 inches (about 3.87 feet) where the code requires 5 feet, and the side property line distance measured 75 inches (6.25 feet) where 7.5 feet is required. Staff reviewed the five variance criteria and said they could not recommend approval because the structure was constructed without required permits and staff believed alternative placements were available.
Property owner James Allen told the board the building—built in 2022 and used as a hobby shop—was installed by a contractor who had assured them permits would be handled. Allen described financial hardship if forced to relocate the structure and said he had reported the contractor to the Better Business Bureau. "He has proven to be a very extremely shady character," Allen said, describing long delays and missed commitments by the contractor.
Board members asked detailed questions about measurements, the permitting process and whether modification or relocation was feasible. Staff explained that if a variance were approved the building would then proceed through plan review and inspections to achieve a permitted status; staff also reiterated that financial hardship is not a criterion for variance approval. The motion to approve the variances passed by a 3‑2 roll call; the board noted remaining requirements for engineering, stormwater and final inspections.
