Zoning board approves use variance to allow professional-office use at Thompson Road property with sign and site-plan conditions

The Town of DeWitt Zoning Board of Appeals on April 29 approved a use variance allowing a property on Thompson Road to be used as a professional office rather than housing, subject to four conditions including limits on signage and a required planning-board site-plan review.

Board members said an outside appraisal and supporting affidavits demonstrated the applicant could not realize a reasonable return if the property were converted to residential use. The appraisal, procured after an earlier hearing and prepared by Colliers appraiser Don Fisher, concluded conversion costs could be as much as $300,000 and said those costs would substantially reduce the property’s market value.

The board imposed four conditions when it approved the variance: the permitted use will be limited to a financial-services office, nonprofit or other professional service; the applicant shall not install a monument (freestanding) sign; the applicant may install one attached building sign up to 50 square feet with “reasonable” lighting limited to identification and safety; and the applicant must complete site-plan review with the Planning Board for the change of use.

Members discussed restricting tenants and asked whether the variance should be limited to a specific kind of office. Several members said they did not want to limit the property to one narrow business type but wanted to exclude higher-impact uses such as retail or medical clinics. The board’s approved language narrowly defines permissible uses as “financial services office, nonprofit, or other professional service,” and excludes monument signage while reserving final authority on any permitted sign to the Planning Board during site-plan review.

Board members who reviewed the use-variance criteria said the record supplied “dollars-and-cents” evidence, including the Colliers appraisal and affidavits from industry professionals, and cited the property’s multi-year marketing history and prior zoning changes as additional support. Members also discussed whether the hardship was self-created and noted the property’s purchase predated a 2007 zoning-code rewrite that changed permitted uses in the area.

The board’s motion to approve the variance passed with five votes in favor and one opposed.

The applicant will now proceed to the Planning Board for required site-plan review. If the Planning Board finds signage or parking inconsistent with code, the applicant may need additional approvals or amendments.