Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Avon board denies variance for front‑yard trash enclosure at proposed Rights Gymnastics site
Summary
The Avon board voted to deny Variance V26‑03, which would have allowed a trash enclosure in the established front yard at 8170 Kingston Street, concluding the petitioner did not meet the statutory findings on practical difficulty and permanence. The decision was made by roll call.
The Avon board on Feb. 17 denied a developer’s request to place a trash enclosure in the established front yard of a proposed multi‑tenant building at 8170 Kingston Street, rejecting Variance V26‑03 after questioning whether the petitioner met the required findings for a variance.
Staff presented the application for Rights Gymnastics and a roughly 22,600‑square‑foot multi‑tenant building that would sit on a corner lot in the Avon Commerce Park subdivision. Staff said the proposed masonry enclosure would be set back about 170 feet from the Kingston Street right‑of‑way, that the opaque gate would face Dover Street, and that the enclosure would match building materials. Staff recommended approval, telling the board the proposal met the ordinance’s five required findings (the first three required by state statute and two added by the town) and noting the U.S. 36 overlay typically expects refuse areas at the rear of buildings unless the plan commission approves an alternate location.
Dylan Reynolds, a civil engineer with Space Co. representing developer Alt Construction, said the building placement and driveway alignment were driven by drainage and site‑layout constraints and that the chosen enclosure location was the most practical option. Reynolds said the enclosure was sized for two eight‑yard dumpsters and that landscaping to screen the enclosure is included in the development plan review (DPR) materials.
Several board members disagreed that the petitioner had shown a statutory practical difficulty. Members pressed whether the project was a matter of preference for building size and orientation rather than an inability to comply with the ordinance, and expressed concern that a variance allowing a front‑yard enclosure would remain with the property permanently and could be used by future tenants who might not maintain it. Board members also raised the possibility of rotating or resizing the building, placing the enclosure in the street‑side yard, or requiring a dedicated loading aisle as alternatives. Staff replied that some alternatives would require significant earthwork, change drainage characteristics, or reduce the building footprint in ways that could threaten project feasibility on a lot that has remained vacant since the late 1990s.
After extended discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance; the motion was seconded. By roll call vote the board approved the motion to deny (roll call recorded as affirmative votes by Genberger, Enman, Ransburg, Tashler and Turner), and the requested variance allowing a trash enclosure in the established front yard was denied. The denial means the developer may still present the DPR to the plan commission, but without the variance the plan commission would not be able to approve an alternate front‑yard enclosure location that conflicts with the chapter five front‑yard prohibition.
The board also discussed scheduling and agreed to change the October meeting date. The meeting adjourned after the schedule change was recorded.
Sources: Avon Town meeting transcript, presentation materials and board roll call.
