Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks Drive Through topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants five variances for small Cambridge outlot; applicant cites roundabout, wetlands and tight footprint
Summary
The board approved five variances for a Cambridge/ServicePRO outlot (parcel 28‑0893), including front and rear setback reductions, a sign setback variance, reduced drive‑through stacking, and a reduced landscape buffer, after the owner described site size limits, adjacent wetlands and a required bypass lane.
The City of Green Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 20 approved five variances for CAM Incorporated’s outlot at parcel 28‑0893 to allow a low‑intensity drive‑through use (ServicePRO oil‑change) on a constrained site.
Chair read five requested variances: a roughly 42.5‑foot front setback variance to permit a structure 7.5 feet from the right‑of‑way; a 21.8‑foot rear setback variance to locate the structure 3.2 feet from the rear lot line; a 7.5‑foot sign setback variance to allow an identification sign 2.5 feet from the road right‑of‑way; a stacking reduction to allow four cars to queue instead of six; and a front‑yard vehicle‑use landscape buffer variance reducing the required 10‑foot buffer.
Property owner Jeff Mockbee told the board the original lot was about a half‑acre before a 2018 roundabout reduced the usable area to roughly 0.42 acres, and that wetlands on the neighboring parcel and unsuccessful attempts to acquire adjacent land constrained building placement. “It’s an extremely challenging site,” Mockbee said, explaining that the intended low‑intensity oil‑change use and a recommended bypass lane for circulation made a two‑bay design and reduced stacking the most practical approach.
Board members asked about employee parking, potential future development by the neighboring GetGo parcel and whether a building within 3.2 feet of the property line could hinder future construction; Mockbee said wetlands and lease arrangements on neighboring property made future development uncertain. Planning staff present said they had reviewed the proposal, had recommended the bypass lane, and generally concurred with the layout given the site constraints.
A board member moved to approve all five variances; another seconded. The clerk conducted a roll call and the Chair announced the motion passed. The applicant thanked the board.
Next steps: the applicant may proceed to permitting and site plan follow‑through in coordination with planning and public works staff; no conditions beyond the variance approvals were noted in the transcript.
