Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Avon BZA approves Ray Skillman special exception and two variances for US‑36 dealership site
Summary
The Avon Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved special exception SA2501 and two variances to permit a Ray Skillman Mazda dealership on a subdivided parcel along U.S. 36, including permission for a 250‑foot front setback and up to six rows of parking in front of the building.
The Avon Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved a special exception (SA2501) and two variances (VAR2501a and VAR2501b) to allow an automotive sales, leasing and service facility (a Mazda dealership) on a subdivided parcel of a larger commercial tract along U.S. 36.
Planning staff recommended approval, saying the U.S. 36 corridor is the town’s primary location for auto sales and that the proposed use is consistent with surrounding dealerships. Staff noted earlier approvals for the same site were granted in 2015 but expired when construction did not commence; the petitioner and staff said the Ray Skillman group built a Hyundai dealership on a different lot after those approvals and has retained ownership of the subject property since then.
The petitioner, Derek Snyder of Crossroad Engineers, described a primary plat that would divide the overall tract (more than 27 acres) and create a 6.11‑acre parcel for the Mazda dealership. Snyder and the planning staff said the site lies within the U.S. 36 overlay and touches tier 1 in the overlay district at the front of the proposed building. Because the overlay’s tier 1 rules affect front setbacks and the number of rows of parking allowed in front of buildings, the petitioner requested two variances: permission for a 250‑foot front building setback (the petitioner requested a 250‑foot setback to provide flexibility in building placement) and permission for up to six rows of parking in front of the building where tier‑1 standards limit the number of rows for typical commercial uses.
Staff and the petitioner argued the variances satisfy the statutory variance criteria: the request would not injure public health or adjacent property values, the site is compatible with adjacent auto dealerships (which have similar configurations), and strict application of the UDO would create a practical difficulty because automobile dealerships rely on visible outdoor display of inventory.
Board members discussed the site’s long zoning history and the practical-difficulty argument tied to outdoor vehicle display. Several members said the request makes sense as a logical extension of the existing dealership cluster along U.S. 36. One member expressed caution about relying on outdoor display as the central rationale for practical difficulty but ultimately agreed the cluster’s uniform configuration supports the variance.
Votes and motions recorded in the transcript: - Special exception SA2501 (Ray Skillman Automotive of Avon): motion to approve by Paul Guchenberger; second by Anne Inman. Roll-call recorded yes votes from Paul Guchenberger; Anne Inman; Catherine Ransberg; Marci Taschler; Marcus Turner. Outcome: approved. - VAR2501a (variance to allow the requested front building setback—250 feet requested): motion to approve (mover specified in the record as Catherine Ransberg; second recorded as Paul Guchenberger). Roll-call recorded unanimous yes votes. Outcome: approved. - VAR2501b (variance to allow six rows of parking in front of the building where tier‑1 rules limit the number of rows for typical commercial uses): motion to approve (mover recorded as Catherine Ransberg; second recorded as Marci Taschler). Roll-call recorded unanimous yes votes. Outcome: approved.
The board’s approvals revive privileges similar to those previously granted for this site in 2015 but which had lapsed when construction did not proceed. Staff noted the petition is consistent with adjacent auto-oriented development and that future lots within the same primary plat could be developed later. No members of the public signed up to speak on the item at the hearing.
Clarifying note on numeric limits: the record repeatedly cites the petitioner’s request for a 250‑foot setback and a request for six rows of parking in front. The transcript contains at least one inconsistent numerical reference to the “maximum” permitted front setback; that maximum is not clearly specified in the hearing record. The article therefore reports the requested 250‑foot setback and the requested six rows of parking and notes that the transcript does not provide a single, consistent numeric value for the ordinance’s maximum front setback in tier 1.
