Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting — 2025-10-08

Detailed briefing

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting — October 8, 2025 ATTENDEES: Kim Morris, Kathy Montel, Sue Stewart, John Le, Ron Turner, and Jamie Jenkins; the board stated that a quorum was present and everyone was in attendance. • The board approved the minutes from its August 13 meeting. • The board’s only business was a request for a dimensional variance for a 16-by-8-foot shed at a property near the end of the Central Business District. Staff said the Planning Commission had previously approved special land use to convert the building back to single-family use. That prior approval was background only; it was not reconsidered by the ZBA. • The proposed shed would be within the district’s 20-foot setbacks for single-family residential properties and would sit approximately one foot, plus or minus, from the west property line. The applicant said the shed would provide storage for equipment, bicycles and other items because the property has no garage. • Discussion addressed the shared access/easement area, the loss of one parking space, snow-plowing storage, and whether emergency access around the shed would be limited. Staff noted that parking also exists along Jud Street and elsewhere behind the property. The applicant said the property would retain additional parking spaces. • Board members also raised runoff from the shed roof toward the neighboring property. Staff suggested that a gutter along that side could help address the issue. The applicant said a gutter could be installed, but no condition was stated in the final motion. • Staff explained that a variance requires a finding of practical difficulty, including physical limitations, reasonable need, lack of a lesser-variance alternative, and that the issue was not self-created. The board approved the variance on a roll-call vote, with all recorded votes in favor. • The board received three emails from neighbors, described as primarily supporting the project. No correspondence from the adjacent western neighbors was reported. Worth watching: • Whether the shed is built at the approximately one-foot setback shown on the submitted plan. • Whether guttering or other runoff measures are incorporated, since the issue was discussed but not recorded as a condition. • Whether access through the shared easement remains clear after construction. Upcoming: No future meeting date, construction deadline, or follow-up review was announced. Why it matters: The approval allows storage on a constrained residential property while leaving runoff, access and close-property-line impacts as key implementation issues.

No open public follow-ups are linked to this meeting yet.