Urbana board approves variances for existing house expansion, denies shed request

The Town of Urbana Board of Zoning Appeals on an item advertised as zoning amendment 2024‑var‑01 approved two variances to allow an existing residence to remain and to permit an addition closer to the front and rear lot lines, and denied a third variance to construct a permanent shed within the front setback.

The board voted to allow a 10‑foot front‑yard setback where the ordinance requires 40 feet and a 12‑foot rear‑yard setback where 25 feet is required for the Riddick property, citing prior town actions, site‑plan history and the way building permits and approvals were issued. The board denied a request to construct a shed that would sit inside the front setback.

Town planning staff (Ted) told the board that the packet evidence includes a building‑permit file bearing a county permit notation and communications from past zoning administrators, but that some plats in the file were unstamped or undated. Ted said the available site plans and permit records do not fully support vesting the larger addition now requested, even though a certificate of occupancy protects the existing structure. “With all the mistakes, all the errors, that ended it — Mr. Riddick is entitled and the Riddicks are entitled to what they have,” Ted said, describing the certificate of occupancy as an affirmative governmental act that preserves the current dwelling but not an expansion beyond what was authorized in the permit.

Applicant Chris Riddick told the panel he had submitted multiple revised plans to zoning administrators and to the building official during construction, and that some in‑construction adjustments were made to make small spaces—bathroom and utility—usable. “I presented it to the administrator; I provided a copy of the proposed plan and the elevations of the addition, and it's a modest addition to a very small house,” Riddick said, urging the board to recognize that he relied on prior approvals and communications when he began work.

The board’s attorney (participating by phone) repeatedly cautioned members that their decision must rest on the statutory variance findings: whether strict application of the ordinance unreasonably affects the property’s use; whether any hardship is caused by physical conditions of the property; and whether the hardship was self‑imposed. Counsel noted courts commonly treat purchaser‑knowledge questions narrowly and asked the board to articulate the factual basis for any affirmative findings. “The only question is, does a 40‑foot setback unreasonably affect the utilization of the property?” the attorney said during deliberations.

One nearby property owner, Dr. Steven Connolly, spoke during public comment in support of the applicant, telling the board he had walked the land with Riddick and had “no problem with what he's proposing to build.” Board members also heard testimony from neighbors that the modest addition and a properly sited shed would not substantially harm adjacent properties.

After extended discussion of the site‑plan history, permit records and the variance standards, a board member moved to approve the first variance to recognize the existing 10‑foot front‑yard setback (where 40 feet is required). The motion cited prior town interpretations, the creation of the lot in earlier decades, and the applicant’s reliance on prior approvals; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board then approved the second variance for a 12‑foot rear‑yard setback (where 25 feet is required) on the same rationale.

On the third request, members debated whether the shed described in the application was a permanent, constructed accessory building or a temporary structure that could be placed on skids. The board voted to deny the variance for construction of a permanent shed within the front setback; board members noted that a smaller or temporary shed might require a building permit and would be evaluated under different rules.

The hearing record shows the town's staff summary, building‑permit documentation and the applicant’s submitted plans formed the core of evidence on which the board relied. The board closed the public hearing after the votes and adjourned the meeting.

The Board of Zoning Appeals did not announce any immediate enforcement action regarding the existing, permitted structure; its votes formalized relief for the existing encroachment and for the proposed addition while denying the permanent‑shed construction request. The matter may be subject to further administrative follow‑up or appeal under applicable local and state procedures; the board adjourned following the votes.