The City of Auburn Board of Zoning Adjustments on Oct. 1 voted to grant a variance to allow a property owner to build a new, 1,440-square-foot accessory structure at 8342 Osceola Court.

The variance affects the zoning rule that limits the total floor area of accessory structures to 50% of a principal dwelling’s floor area. Planning staff reported the applicant’s existing and proposed accessory structures total about 2,298 square feet, compared with the house’s reported size of roughly 2,012 square feet, producing a variance request of about 64%. Planning staff said the applicant intends to store vintage vehicles and boats in the new building.

The request drew discussion about the property’s status as a nonconforming rural lot that is smaller than the rural three-acre minimum and thus subject to the 50% accessory limit. Board members and staff discussed alternatives, including connecting the detached garage to the house to change its status, and noted cost and grade-change constraints the applicant cited.

Applicant Joby Watson told the board he had recently lost access to nearby storage and could not afford commercial storage. “This was kind of our only option,” Watson said, describing the vehicles as family heirlooms and saying neighbors he contacted had no objection.

During board deliberations some members expressed sympathy for Watson’s circumstances. One board member (identified in the record as “Board member”) said, “I think he's being punished for having a small house. I think it's stupid.” Planning staff and other members emphasized the board’s legal role is to determine whether the standards for a hardship-based variance are met rather than to rewrite zoning policy.

There was a procedural question after the first recorded tally about whether supernumerary members had been called to serve (only regular members may vote unless a supernumerary is formally called). Board members subsequently moved to reconsider the vote; on the second tally the motion passed with the required number of affirmative votes and the variance was approved.

The board’s approval includes a note in the public record that the relief granted applies only to the accessory-floor-area limit cited in the application; other regulations such as impervious-surface rules were not evaluated as part of the variance.

The board closed the item and moved to the next case on the evening’s agenda.