Quick Take
Santa Cruz County homeowner David Bernstein says he expected the county to enforce its building codes when a neighbor built a workshop without a permit, directly on his property line. Instead, the county granted a variance allowing the building to stay — and upheld that decision on appeal. His review of county records found that staff recommended approving all 72 variance requests reviewed since February 2023, including several for construction already completed without permits. He argues that the county is rewarding people who build first and ask permission later. He wants the county board of supervisors to tighten rules against those who build first and ask later.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
As Lookout reported in June 2025, getting a building permit in Santa Cruz County is hard.
The article cited a civil grand jury finding that many homeowners and professionals see it as “one of the most costly, time-consuming and exasperating endeavors undertaken in the county.”
So when a workshop went up behind our family’s home with no permit at all, I assumed the same scrutiny would apply to it. I found the opposite, so I appealed. I’m telling you that up front so you can weigh what follows.
The workshop is 234 square feet, built right on our back property line. The code doesn’t allow zero setback ever. Even a small shed, half this size, must sit 3 feet back, and a building this size needs 15. The county red-tagged it, and I was glad.
I showed staff, from a licensed survey, that the building even crosses onto our property. I thought I was helping the county enforce its own rules.
While the owner’s variance request was under review, county staff told him four times in writing that he should build a standard-size shed with those required setbacks.
He turned that down and took it to a hearing.
The zoning administrator granted the variance and waived the setback entirely, allowing him to keep the workshop as he built it.
I was stunned: Building without a permit had earned a free pass.
The workshop also has wiring no inspector has ever seen, e-bike and scooter batteries charging inside it, and it sits against our fence line. The zoning administrator put off fire and building code questions, while acknowledging the building “will likely need to be modified to comply with the building code.”
Yet the approval set no date for a building or electrical permit, and it stays good until 2029.
After that decision, I set out to make sure someone gave this building the scrutiny an ordinary permit application gets. I appealed to the county planning commission.
It did not happen there, either.
One commissioner called the building “egregiously beyond the zoning code.” But the talk was less about whether the building met the code than about the fact that it was already standing. One commissioner said he would “trust the staff.” Another said the code allows it “no matter how we got here.” The vote to uphold the variance was 4-0.
Someone who applies in advance is asked: Does this meet the code? Someone who has already built gets a different question: What do we do about it now? The second question has an easier answer.
What surprised me most was how little the after-the-fact review asked. An ordinary applicant has to account for every measurement, construction detail, drainage, fire, electrical. Not here.
The reason for the variance got no more rigor than the building did. A variance requires something special about the property itself, and in this case the reason kept changing. First the lot was small; staff later conceded it is a standard, full-size lot. Then it was where the owner’s house sits. Then it was “the historical pattern of development,” which no one listed, counted or measured.
So I looked at the record. Since February 2023, 72 variance requests have gone to the county’s zoning administrator. Staff recommended approving the variance in all 72. The county’s permit-status pages list 69 as approved and none as denied.
Many had good reasons, such as steep slopes or odd-shaped lots. But at least six were for work already built without a permit, three this year alone. Staff recommended approving every one.
The person who asks first is held to the rules, and the person who builds first can get them waived.
Setbacks and size limits exist for neighbors: light, privacy, fire spacing, room to maintain a fence. If “the historical pattern of development” is enough to waive them, it is enough almost anywhere in the county. If it is built without a permit, there is effectively no limit on how large it can be, or how close to you it ends up.
A rule enforced only on the people who follow it is not a community standard. It is a penalty for asking.
None of this needs new law. Four changes would do it:
- Make “no” the starting answer for anything built without a permit.
- If the owner asks for a variance anyway, hold it to the same standard as someone who applies in advance. With a specific feature of the land, named and measured, it can be allowed. Without one, the building has to meet the code or come down.
- When a variance comes with conditions, set a deadline and an inspection.
- Post the zoning administrator’s decisions online, and count each year how many approvals were for work already built.
The county should be more “yes” for people who apply, and more “no” for people who build without asking.
If you agree that building without a permit should get a “no,” tell the board of supervisors.
The county should make it easier for people to do things the right way — and harder for those who don’t. Building without a permit should never put someone in a better position than asking for one.
David Bernstein has lived in Santa Cruz County since 1972. He attended Soquel High and UC Santa Cruz, raised his family here, started his technology career at a local company in 1981, and has owned homes here for more than 40 years. He is the appellant in the variance case described in this piece, now before the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors.
