Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Adjustment approves front-yard setback variance for 361 Michael Lane

Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment · July 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment on July 20 approved a variance to reduce the front‑yard setback at 361 Michael Lane from the UDO‑calculated 38 feet to 22 feet so the longtime Kelly family can rebuild in the original footprint; staff had recommended denial as a self‑imposed hardship.

The Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment on July 20 approved a variance allowing the front‑yard setback at 361 Michael Lane to be reduced to 22 feet so a rebuilt house can occupy the same location as the previous structure.

Planning staff recommended denial, saying the hardship appeared to be self‑imposed: “staff considers the hardship to be self imposed,” Lauren, planning staff, told the board during the staff presentation. Staff told the board the parcel is zoned SF3, is unplatted, and that reduced setbacks for nonconforming lots produce a 38‑foot front‑yard requirement under the UDO’s calculations; the applicant requested 22 feet to match the existing house and foundation.

Members of the Kelly family and neighbors urged approval. Wayland Kelly, who said his parents Billy and Donna have lived at 361 Michael Lane for 43 years, described the house’s history and the family’s preference to rebuild “right back where it is” to align with neighboring homes. Neighbor Linda Gooch, who told the board her family has lived on Michael Lane since 1934, said she “wholeheartedly support[s] the approval” and urged leniency so the family can improve the property.

Chair responded to staff concerns by noting the character of the older neighborhood and the existing legal nonconforming elements on the street, arguing the reconstruction would preserve neighborhood character. After brief board discussion and a request to call the question, the board voted to approve the variance; the Chair characterized the vote as unanimous and instructed the applicants to work with staff on final platting and permit steps.

The variance was approved at the meeting’s conclusion; the board did not record an individual roll‑call tally in the transcript, and the Chair stated the approval was unanimous. The applicants were directed to coordinate with planning staff on final platting and building‑permit requirements.