Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request to convert accessory building into rentable unit at 337–339 Camp Street
Summary
The Sandusky Board of Zoning and Appeals voted to deny a use-variance that would have allowed cooking facilities and long-term rental of an accessory building at 337–339 Camp Street, finding the change contrary to two-family zoning and the code’s ADU limits.
The Sandusky Board of Zoning and Appeals voted to deny an application to reestablish an accessory living accommodation with cooking equipment at 337–339 Camp Street, a rear accessory building constructed in 1958. Planning staff told the board they could not verify that cooking equipment had been present in the structure since 1956, the date referenced in the code, and recommended careful evaluation of the use-variance.
Planning staff (Mr. Panis) said the building is about 475 square feet and that the applicant had supplied a proposed floor plan and a list of planned building upgrades but had not produced documentation proving continuous presence of cooking equipment dating back to 1956. "The applicant could not prove that cooking equipment has been present in this building since 1956," he said.
Applicant representative Evan McKenzie said the owners (the Gabro family) intend to rehabilitate the structure, bring it up to code and offer it as additional affordable housing. "We'd really like to turn it into affordable housing," McKenzie said, adding the architect (Katarina Gabro) would perform the work to code and that the owners have invested in core building systems over the last few years.
Board members debated whether approving the application would effectively convert a two-family lot into a three-family use and whether that would be a substantial variance from the code. One member argued the change was a major departure from the zoning intent: "It's a 180 degree move," a board member said in describing their view that allowing a full kitchen transforms an accessory building into multi-family use.
After discussion, a member moved to deny the request; the motion carried on roll call (recorded votes: Westpool — Yes; Steve Pali — Yes; Dan Delahunt — Yes; Kevin Zire — No). Board staff noted the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Commission and reiterated that any construction would still require building, engineering and other departmental approvals.
The denial resolves the matter at the BZA level but leaves potential review to the City Commission if the applicant pursues an appeal. The board asked staff to follow up with the applicant on appeal procedures and next steps.
