Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Childcare Usage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies DeWitt Child Care conditional use, staff had flagged traffic and site design issues
Summary
Monroe CountyBoard of Zoning Appeals voted 4to1 to deny a conditional use request for Early Learners Child Care at 4390 N. Ridgewood Drive, citing unresolved parking and drop‑off/pickup impacts and insufficient site design to ensure neighborhood safety.
Get email alerts on the Childcare Usage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 4 voted 4–1 to deny a conditional use application that would have formalized operation of Early Learners Child Care at 4390 North Ridgewood Drive.
Planning staff recommended denial, stating the property’s layout and parking did not yet demonstrate the site design and supervision characteristics required by the County Development Ordinance for a childcare center and that drop‑off and pickup activity — as described in an anonymous complaint and staff follow‑up — created traffic and safety concerns that had not been addressed in the submitted site materials.
Drew Myers, planning staff, told the board the daycare falls under the CDO’s definition of a childcare center only if it meets the ordinance’s operating and physical standards; the county had received an anonymous complaint raising traffic and on‑street parking issues. Myers said the petitioner reported four employees and up to 30 children, which by the CDO’s parking standard translates to 12 parking spaces (one space per four clients plus one per employee) and that the preliminary site conditions included gravel and driveway areas that might not meet the minimum parking‑aisle and driveway standards on the property without additional design work.
Caitlin DeWitt, owner and operator of Early Learners Child Care, told the board she has operated local childcare for eight years and that families rely on the center’s affordable, nearby care. DeWitt said she and her staff were willing to pursue measures including a pull‑through driveway permit from the highway department, assigned staggered drop‑off/pick‑up slots and improvements to employee parking and had recently added gravel to provide additional employee parking.
Multiple parents and local supporters described long county wait lists for childcare and urged the board to consider the community impact of closing an existing local provider. Supporters said they typically saw three to four cars on site at peak times and that staff had instituted procedures to limit clustering during drop‑off and pick‑up.
Neighbors and other residents opposed to the request said Ridgewood Drive has constrained sight lines, a slope and points where backing or on‑street activity create safety concerns; several neighbors submitted written opposition citing increased congestion since the child care began operating at the address. The County Highway Department noted the site had not been reviewed by the Traffic Commission for on‑street parking restrictions.
After public comment and discussion, the board voted to deny CDU‑25‑4, saying the petitioner had not yet met the CDO criteria that site design and supervision characteristics ensure that the “peace and safety of the surrounding area shall not be impaired.” The motion carried 4–1. Board members directed staff to work with the petitioner on next steps; legal counsel advised staff not to take enforcement action to close the center before June 4, 2026, while the county and petitioner pursue compliance and transition options.
Clarifying details from the record: the petitioner reported 4 employees and 30 children (CDO parking standard would require 12 spaces); the property sits in the Jack’s DeFeet watershed and staff noted existing impervious cover and septic/driveway issues would affect any redesign; the Highway Department said the property had not been presented to the Traffic Commission for consideration of on‑street parking restrictions.
Ending: The denial leaves the center able to work with planning staff on a permitted path forward; the board explicitly invited staff to use discretion about a transitional enforcement timeline while the petitioner pursues site‑plan changes and permits.

