Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Welcome to the Town of Avon Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. If you are interested in having a copy of the agenda or the staff reports, they are available to the tables to the right of the audience. This meeting is being recorded for the public record. Because of this, we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and all cell phones are set to vibrate with any phone calls taken outside of the chambers. If you are interested in

commenting during any public hearing, please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, please step forward to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to staff or the appellant. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. We do understand that there may be several persons who wish to speak. The chair may therefore impose a time limit on each person. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting. Please stand for the pledge

algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Do we have roll call, please? Paul Genberger, here. Annne Inman, here. Katherine Rensber. Marcy Tashler here. Marcus Turner

here. First on the on the agenda is approval of the minutes from October 21st, 2025. Did anyone have any questions, comments, or concerns? If there are none, we'll entertain a motion. I move we approve the minutes of 102125. A motion by Mr. Genenberger. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mrs. Tacheler. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Meeting minutes are approved. Next item is request for continuences or agenda modifications. We do not have any.

Then we will go on to public comment. Does anyone wish to address the board at this time? And with no one coming forward, we will close public comment. We'll move on to new business. This is VU 25-07 1 916 through1 1 918 North Avon Avenue accessory structure. There we go. Okay. As you said, 916 to 918 North Avon Avenue. This is near the intersection of uh 100 North and Avon Avenue. They're requesting uh a variance of use to allow for the construction of an accessory building related to a two family dwelling on site. The property is zoned C2 which uh residential is not permitted in the C2 district and I'll get into that. Uh it's a acreage is 69 acres. This is a zoning map of the site. Um, it's very tiny over there, but the the property is this one right here. This whole corner is zone C3, although used residentially, or C2, I'm sorry. Uh, C2 across the street, which is the bank. C1 is this open vacant lot that we've had some cases on recently. C2 to the north which is the CVS and more commercial Speedway gas station here. The residential surrounding to the south and to the west is all residential but in the under the county jurisdiction. The property is improved with a two family dwelling. It was constructed in 1968.

Um the subject site along with the adjacent three lots were annexed into the town in 2010. Uh, one thing that I've added to the slide that was not in your packet because I didn't have the information from the county yet, but we found out it was reszoned to the county's general business category in 2005 from their RB to uh, general business 2005. So then when it came into the town, it was then zone C2, which is the corresponding district in the town. Um, pictures of the site. This is the duplex on site. Uh the driveway, there's another driveway just off the picture that goes around to the other side. Um the rear of the lot from the front existing accessory structure there. And then the um concrete pad you can kind of see in the background is generally where the structure is proposed. These are some shots taken from 100 north looking past two of the two of the other residential properties towards where this um garage would be in that the concrete patio. You can kind of see there. It's a little better in this picture up here. This is from the county. This was the 2005 conceptual plan that was filed back then. just so you can see what the idea or intent was uh in 2005 when it was reszoned. Obviously, that never uh happened. And the uh duplexes on this site as well as the other three sites, four sites actually, but one did not get annexed. Uh all those duplexes remain. So, they are legal non-conforming. It's a site plan of the property showing the duplex and then the proposed accessory structure. This is generally what it would look like.

Uh the required findings of fact for a variance of use are are displayed here. Um that it would not be injurious to injurious to the public health, safety, morals, general welfare of the community. We do not believe so because it the site is developed similarly to the surrounding residential properties which also have accessory structure similar to what is proposed. Um that the use of value of the adjacent area would not be impacted. Again it would be a similar development pattern as the adjacent residential properties surrounding it on three sides. uh the need for the variance arises from a condition peculiar to the property uh in that it is zone C2 but being used residentially uh legal non-conforming um that it would be difficult to make an improvement a standard residential improvement to a property because it's zone C2 um there is an unnecessary hardship again because of the C2 zoning that that is that is with it when it came into the town and that a standard accessory structure could not be built. We do not think it would in inter interfere substantially with the town's comprehensive plan because the site could always be developed um per the ordinance under the C2 um without much change from what's what's out there. I mean the if it were to be developed similar to the site plan that was shown to you before this one uh accessory structure wouldn't make much of a difference in the development of that that type of uh commercial development. Again the site uh the the structure was built in 1968. If this property were zoned appropriately, being an R3, R4, R5, it would be permitted to have an accessory structure, uh, with just a permit. It would not have to come before any boards or commissions. This is a larger than average

residential lot. We have no reason to believe that an accessory structure would have any sort of negative impacts on the surrounding properties. And so therefore, we recommend that the variance be approved subject to the site plan that you have in your in your packet file dated October 20th. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. The petitioner is here. Questions for staff. And if there are no questions for staffer right here from petitioner, you want to come up to the mic, press the button to turn the light green.

Sure. It's already green. Can you hear me? Yeah.

Okay, perfect. Good evening. Um, so the purpose of the structure is because those several properties along Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Lorine Miller Zarab. Um, so I am the owner of the property and the adjacent properties currently, we weren't even aware they were C2s. Um but uh what would the intention of the unit is for storage purposes for the rental properties? We have a rider riding mower. We have an extra stove, an extra refrigerator in case something breaks. And right now they're scattered amongst many other places. And we just wanted one place to put everything that was easy access um to the properties. And that's the reason why we were hoping to build that on site. We will use it for also for some personal things as well, but primarily for purposes of the properties that are rentals right there. Let's go ahead and open up the public hearing. It is uh 6:42. Is anyone signed up to speak?

No one has signed up to speak.

Would anyone like to speak? And with no coming with no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing at 6:42. We'll open it up for discussion. I guess I guess I'll I'll kick it off. I really with four of the five issues on the staff report. I'm totally fine. The the thing that I can't get over here is criteria four. uh strict application of the terms of the ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought and the petitioner is arguing that the town's ordinance doesn't allow accessory uses to be developed within primary uses that are legal non-conforming just because we have a ordinance does not constitute a practical difficulty. So someone someone give me a way around this just because we have an ordinance doesn't you know we we heard that we heard that a couple months ago in a in a regular variance too. It's uh the fact that we have an ordinance does not create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. So somebody give me a reason I can get over that hurdle. So, I know this is one we always kind of talk about in these cases. Um, but I think, you know, I would concur with what staff has put down here that with the the zoning that with it being brought into the town from the county, um, and just look at with the development there, it's not going to stop, um, any de I don't believe any development to comply with a comprehensive plan just like criterion five. So to have this additional structure there um I don't think I think it is and I agree

with staff that there is a un a necessary hardship because of the way it's been zoned as it's been incorporated in the town of Avon. On. Okay. Any other discussion?

No, I I can I can answer that. I have had a few of them come into the office um when when they got the notice just wondering what was going on. Once I showed them the plans, they said, "Oh, okay." And left. So, nothing to correct. in debate. Correct.

Is there any other discussion?

As soon as permissible. As soon as permissible. There's no other discussion. We'll entertain a motion.

Um, I move that we approve variance U25-07 uh 916 to 918 North Avon Avenue accessory structure. a variance of use to allow for construction of a 600 foot accessory building to be located behind a two-f family dwelling which is not permitted use in C2 because it will meet all the requirements for variance of use under state law and subject to the adopted findings of fact second. Okay, we have a motion by Mrs. Enman, second by Mr. Gutenberger. Is there any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Genber

four. Inman for Tatler or Turner against. Okay. Is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good evening.

Moving on to other business. We have the 2026 BCA meeting schedule. In your packet, you received a schedule um with the Bring it with me, but the column that says the hearing dates um is what needs Yes. Thanks. The last column where where it says board zone appeals hearing dates. The rest of the dates you're not approving. They're just backtracking for filing deadlines and such. But the the last column R says board of zoning appeals meeting dates for um 2026 uh would need to be approved by the board. There are no um dates that have been changed outside of the third Wednesday because of holidays or anything like that.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions or concerns? just u I don't know if you know this now. Is there any conflicts with any um council meetings that would move us to another location at this time? Okay. There's not. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the 2026 meeting schedule for the board of zoning appeals as stated in the document. Motion by Mrs. Enman. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mrs. Tashler. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. I.

Anyone opposed? We've approved the schedule. Thank you. Thank you. There is and it's scheduled for December 16th. Anything else for the good of the cause? And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.