Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies Electric Plus use variance after neighbors and staff raise long‑standing concerns
Summary
The Monroe County BZA denied a request to reclassify 7854 N. Wayport Road for a general‑contractor business, citing prior denials, insufficient proof of unnecessary economic hardship and strong neighborhood opposition to a broad general‑contractor zoning designation.
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a use variance that would have permitted a general‑contractor use at 7854 North Wayport Road, a large vacant building that the petitioner hopes Electric Plus would occupy.
Planning staff recommended denial, saying the applicant did not demonstrate the “unnecessary hardship” standard required for a use variance and noting the board had previously denied nearly identical petitions for the site in 2022 and 2023. Staff cited a pending lawsuit and the presence of other buyers who had identified needs that could be accommodated without a use variance.
Chris Cochran, representing Electric Plus, argued the property had been marketed for years without a qualifying buyer and that carrying costs and years of vacancy created financial hardship. He said Electric Plus would be low‑impact: most employees take vehicles home, materials would be stored indoors, and the company would move existing local operations to the site.
Neighbors and residents of the adjacent Windsor Bridal subdivision strenuously objected. Concerns focused on the broad scope of “general contractor” as a use that runs with the land (not with a named tenant), the possibility that a future operator could undertake heavier industrial activity, repeated prior rezone/variance denials and evidence the property had been marketed as “industrial” rather than for permitted agricultural uses. One local property owner who said he was preparing an agricultural use determination testified he had not been able to finalize a purchase while the Electric Plus application was pending.
After extended public testimony and deliberation, board members concluded the petitioner had not met the statutory test for a use variance, noting the site owner’s marketing choices and the plan‑commission history. The BZA denied VAR‑26‑3 by a 4–1 vote.

