Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council faces administrative review option after zoning hearing officer grants variance for Bistro shed
Summary
A zoning hearing officer recommended a use variance allowing a larger replacement shed behind Boarding House Bistro at 212 East State Street; the City Council has 21 days to decide whether to administratively review that decision.
A zoning hearing officer granted a use variance to allow a replacement accessory structure at 212 East State Street, the commercial property occupied by Boarding House Bistro, and the City Council was briefed on the administrative-review process and public concerns at a Community Development Committee meeting.
Greg Anderson, director of community development, told the committee the applicant, Ned Drolet of Ned’s Properties LLC, seeks to replace a deteriorated 1985 shed with a slightly larger 10-by-12-foot structure. Anderson said the proposed replacement would increase lot coverage from 65.9% to 66.8% and would not meet current minimum rear-yard setback requirements. He said the zoning hearing officer recommended granting the variance subject to commercial design guidelines.
Why it matters: Use variances are rare in the city. Anderson said this is likely the third use-variance request since 2017 and that the council has 21 days under city code to decide whether to exercise administrative review of the hearing officer’s decision. “If the city council chooses to seek that path, a motion will need to be made and seconded to review the decision,” Anderson said. If the council takes no action, the hearing officer’s decision stands and takes effect automatically.
Committee members raised questions about the hardship finding that the hearing officer used to justify a use variance. One alderperson asked whether the adjacent property owner had been contacted; Anderson said they had and reported no objections. Another member said she was concerned about precedent if businesses describe limited storage as an economic hardship. Anderson responded that the hearing officer, a licensed attorney, reached the finding based on evidence presented and that council could revisit the matter if it disagrees with that factual determination.
Public comment during the committee meeting included questions about square footage thresholds for sheds and how past nonconforming structures affect current zoning enforcement. Anderson clarified that the variance request is driven by total lot coverage and setback noncompliance, not solely by a shed size threshold.
Next steps: The item will appear on the City Council agenda under committee reports next week as "212 East State Street — use variance." If council members want to review the hearing officer’s decision, they must make a motion at that meeting; otherwise the hearing officer’s ruling will become effective.
No formal motion or council vote on the variance occurred at the committee meeting; the record shows the zoning hearing officer’s recommendation and the staff explanation of the administrative-review process.
