Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals - Jul 01 2026- Cancelled

City of Batavia Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Cancelled Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 100 N. Island Ave, Batavia, IL 60510 in the City Council Chambers Questions and comments regarding agenda items can be submitted prior to 5 PM the day of the meeting by emailing Drew Rackow, Planning and Zoning Officer at drackow@bataviail.gov Applicant of Item 5.1 requested a continuance to the July 15th Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date. Page 1. Meeting Call to Order 2. Roll Call Amy Moore, Chair Robert Kieckhefer, Vice Chair Tom Gosselin Tom LaLonde Katie Cueno Doug Eldrenkamp 3. Items Removed, Added or Changed 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1 June 3, 2026 3 4.2 June 11, 2026 (Commissioner Training) 6 5. Regular Agenda 5.1 Public Hearing: Variances for an Accessory Structure Setbacks at 1120 Essex Court 9 Jill & Chris Sedivy, Applicant Planning Project 26-036 Staff Agenda Packet 6. Matters from the Public (for items not on the agenda) 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Page 1 of 55 Individuals with disabilities should notify the City Administrator’s office at 630-454-2053 if they have a disability which will require special assistance or services and, if so, what services are required. This notification should occur as far as possible before the City-sponsored function, program, or meeting. Page 2 of 55  MINUTES June 3, 2026 Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals City of Batavia PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to make an official record of the actions taken by the Commission and to include some description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some of the individual attendees’ comments, nor the complete comments if referenced. 1. Meeting Called to Order for the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. Roll Call: Members Present: Commissioner Eldrenkamp, Commissioner Cueno, Commissioner Gosselin, Commissioner LaLonde, Vice Chair Kieckhefer, Chair Moore Members Absent: None Also Present: Drew Rackow – Planning and Zoning Officer, Zach Ewoldt – Planner, Sarah Cowan – Recording Secretary 3. Items to be Removed, Added or Changed: None 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. May 6, 2026 Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Motion: To approve the minutes. Maker: Commissioner Eldrenkamp Second: Commissioner LaLonde Voice Vote: Motion Carried 5. Regular Agenda Items 5.1 Public Hearing: Amendment to the Official Zoning Map for Multiple Properties (Carlisle Rd, Danforth Dr, Brown Ct, and Garfield Ave) City of Batavia, Applicant Planning Case 26-033 Motion: To open the public hearing. Maker: Commissioner Gosselin Second: Vice Chair Kieckhefer Voice Vote: Motion Carried The public hearing was opened at 7:01 PM. Page 3 of 55 Plan Commission June 3, Page 2 Zach Ewoldt presented the staff report recommending approval of a zoning map amendment to nine properties: 921 and 934 Carlisle Road, portions of 980 and 981 Danforth Drive, portions of 858, 868, 878 and 888 Brown Court, portions of 910 Garfield Avenue and the adjoining portions of Hoover Lane and Danforth Drive rights of way from R0 Single Family Residential District to R1-L Single Family Low Density District. Commissioner Gosselin inquired about the unrelated new home building permit application at 921 Carlisle Road and Ewoldt reviewed the minimal changes to the setbacks that would occur if the zoning amendment was approved (Interior Side Setback of Principal Structures: twelve feet instead of fifteen feet, and Interior Side Setback of Accessory Structures: six feet instead of ten feet). Ewoldt stated that a new home could be constructed on this property without the proposed zoning change, and that this amendment would not harm the applicant of the current building permit application. Commissioner LaLonde inquired about easements and property access. Ewoldt confirmed that the approval of this amendment would have no changes on the private access easement agreement between 921 Carlisle Road and 934 Carlisle Road, which is also a nonconforming property (934) due to the lack of street frontage. Chair Moore inquired about 900/910 Garfield Avenue and Ewoldt explained that there are two buildings on this property under one tax bill. Chair Moore invited members of the audience to speak after a swearing-in ceremony occurred and there were no further comments. Motion: To close the public hearing. Maker: Vice Chair Kieckhefer Second: Commissioner Gosselin Voice Vote: Motion Carried The public hearing was closed at 7:13 PM. Motion: To adopt the findings as drafted by staff in the memo. Maker: Commissioner Gosselin Second: Commissioner LaLonde Voice Vote: Motion Carried Motion: To approve the amendment to the Official Zoning Map for Multiple Properties (Carlisle Road, Danforth Drive, Brown Court and Garfield Avenue) Maker: Commissioner Gosselin Second: Vice Chair Kieckhefer Voice Vote: Motion Carried 6. Matters From the Public (Not on the agenda): None 7. Other Business: Page 4 of 55 Plan Commission June 3, Page 3 Rackow stated that City Council approved an incentive agreement for the project at 400 South River Street. Rackow stated that staff has received a complete application for 1120 Essex Drive requesting a variance, which will be scheduled for a future meeting. Rackow stated that 1485 Louis Bork Drive (baseball/softball training facility) will be on the Committee of the Whole agenda on June 9. Rackow stated that the variance at 213 Evergreen was approved by City Council and that staff is waiting for the building permit application. Rackow stated that The Whip (formerly The Elms) project was approved by City Council and an interior demolition permit has been issued. Rackow stated that the next Plan Commission meeting will have a continuation of the public hearing for the proposed recreational cannabis dispensary at 899 North Randall Road. Rackow stated that City Council has directed staff to research updates, revisions, and possible changes to the regulations and licensing of video gaming facilities, smoke shops and liquor stores. Rackow reminded the commission that the City of Geneva is hosting a plan commission training at Geneva City Hall on June 11 and Rackow requested advanced notice if members would like to attend. 8. Adjournment: There being no other business to discuss, Chair Moore asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting; there was a motion made by Commissioner Eldrenkamp and a second by Commissioner Gosselin. By voice vote the motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM. The minutes were transcribed and respectfully submitted by Sarah Cowan, Recording Secretary. Page 5 of 55  MINUTES June 11, 2026 Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals City of Batavia PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to make an official record of the actions taken by the Commission and to include some description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some of the individual attendees’ comments, nor the complete comments if referenced. 1. Meeting Called to Order for the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Vice Chair Kieckhefer called the Batavia Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. as part of the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that had already been opened. 2. Roll Call: Members Present: Cueno, Eldrenkamp, Kieckhefer, Members Absent: LaLonde, Gosselin, Moore Also Present: Drew Rackow – Planning and Zoning Officer, Members of the Geneva and St. Charles Plan Commission, City of Geneva Staff It was noted that a majority of a quorum was present. A quorum was not present to conduct business. 3. Items to be Removed, Added or Changed: 4. Regular Agenda Items 4.1 Plan Commission Training with the American Planning Association Illinois Chapter Vice Chair Kieckhefer returned control of the meeting to Chair John Mead of the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission. Training facilitators Jason Berry AICP, Community and Economic Development Director for the Village of Lemont and Phil Green AICP Transportation & Long-Range Planner for the Village of Hoffman Estates conducted a training session for the Commissioners of St. Charles, Geneva and Batavia. Commissioners introduced themselves and the trainers provided their backgrounds. Facilitators discussed the roles of the Commissioners, Elected Officials and the City’s Planning Staff. There was conversation about the ways Commissioners can work with their City Staff in their review of cases. Commissioners are encouraged to reach out to staff with questions ahead of meetings. Berry discussed the Staff Report as a tool for Commissioners. He emphasized that the three items’ Commissioners should find in the report are the nature of the request, the standards that are being applied and the facts that support the request. Green discussed the other entities that review a project. The full review is not on the Commission itself, and they should rely on the content experts. Building Official and Fire Officials to review the project meeting life safety regulations for construction methods. Other Commissions like Historic Page 6 of 55 Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2026, Page 2 Preservation or Housing Commissions may review specific aspects of an application and provide their own recommendations. Other jurisdictions like the Park or School District may also review and provide their own comments. Green discussed the role of the developer, explaining that they will review your community’s Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents to determine if their project fits your community’s plan. The Commission is often the first formal introduction or welcome to the City. Green indicated that the staff works with applicants to get them to a place where the standards are being met or can meet the findings for a particular application. Berry discussed the role of Regional Plan Commissions; in our area this is CMAP (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning). Their role is primarily related to approving transportation projects and their funding. Berry discussed the Local Technical Assistance Program which provides opportunities for municipalities and other agencies to receive assistance on planning projects. There was discussion of the Community Snapshot statistics the agency provides. Facilitators moved on to the role of Commission members during a meeting. They encouraged Commissioners to visit the site ahead of the meeting to understand the context of the proposal. Avoid jargon during the meetings, as the audience may not understand technical terminology. Focus discussions on the standards for a review. The Chair should make sure proper decorum is followed, and all Commissioners should strive to set a tone of professionalism and respect. There was discussion of the use of findings and standards to provide a sound basis for a decision. Commissioners should indicate where they feel those findings are or are not met for the record. Facilitators discussed aspects to consider with conditional use and variances. Conditional uses should be viewed as allowed but may need to follow additional standards to not cause negative effects. For variances, rely on the findings as to whether the request should be considered. Variances are land based decisions and need a unique hardship to the property. Facilitators discussed ex-parte communication in detail with the Commission. Discussion led to ethics and what a conflict of interest is, and when a commissioner should recuse themselves. Disclosure can be used to address the appearance of a conflict. Facilitators discussed the Comprehensive Plan process and encouraged Commissioners to be ambassadors for the Plan and the planning process, as Geneva embarks upon a new Comprehensive Plan. They should encourage other residents to be a part of the process, explain what a plan does and make sure the community is reflected in the process. After a question-and-answer session, Geneva Chair Mead thanked both Green and Berry for leading the evening’s discussion. 5. Matters From the Public (Not on the agenda): Geneva Chair Mead asked for Public Comment. There was none. Page 7 of 55 Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals June 11, 2026, Page 3 6. Other Business: Geneva Staff member Matt Buesing discussed Geneva Plan Commission business. There was no discussion of Batavia Plan Commission business. 7. Adjournment: Vice Chair Kieckhefer asked for a motion to adjourn; there was a motion made by Commissioner Eldrenkamp and a second by Commissioner Cuneo. By voice vote the motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. The minutes were transcribed and respectfully submitted by Drew Rackow Page 8 of 55  MEMO To: Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals From: Zach Ewoldt AICP, Planner Date: June 25, 2026 Re: Public Hearing: Variances for an Accessory Structure Setbacks at 1120 Essex Court Jill & Chris Sedivy, Applicant Planning Project 26-036 Summary: Jill & Chris Sedivy, owners of the property at 1120 Essex Court, have applied for two (2) variances from the Zoning Code. A public hearing is scheduled for the July 1, 2026 Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to review and consider the following requests: 1. A variance from Table 2.104- Additional Regulations B, allow an accessory structure to have a interior side yard setback of approximately 4.5 feet, instead of the required 10 feet, a variance of approximately 5.5 feet. 2. A variance from Table 2.104- Additional Regulations B, allow an accessory structure to have a rear yard setback of approximately 6.66 feet, instead of the required 10 feet, a variance of approximately 3.34 feet. Background and Summary of Information from the Applicant: The applicant has submitted a narrative, photographs, and site plans describing the location, design, and purpose of the proposed accessory structure. The applicants state that construction of the structure without first obtaining a building permit was not intentional, but resulted from a misunderstanding during the early planning stages of the project. During 2023 and 2024, the applicants contacted a member of the City's Building Division to inquire about regulations applicable to play equipment. Based upon the limited information provided at that time, the applicants believed the proposed structure qualified as play equipment rather than an accessory structure under the Zoning Code. The initial inquiry did not include a site plan, building elevations, dimensions, or sufficient information for staff to determine whether the proposed improvement met the definition of an accessory structure. Had those materials been provided, staff would have advised the applicants that the proposed structure was subject to the regulations applicable to accessory structures. Based upon this understanding, the applicants proceeded with construction of the structure, which is approximately 21.5 feet in height at its highest point. Since the issuance of the Stop Work Order, the applicants have generally cooperated with City staff throughout the review process. The structure is presently near completion, requiring installation of siding, roofing material, and windows. The Building Commissioner has completed a preliminary review of the structure and has not identified significant Jeffery D. Schielke Government Center ● 100 N. Island Ave ● Batavia, IL 60510 ● 630-454-2000 ● www.BataviaIL.gov Page 9 of 55 concerns regarding structural integrity or compliance with the Building Code. Pending action on the requested variances and final action by the City Council, the applicants will either complete the structure or remove it from the property. Staff Analysis: City of Batavia Building Division staff inspected the property following investigation of a complaint, and a Stop Work Order was issued on September 11, 2025. The applicant submitted an after- the-fact building permit application on September 18, 2025, allowing staff to review the structure for compliance with applicable codes. During permit review, staff determined the proposed improvement met the definition of an accessory structure and therefore was required to comply with the applicable setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Staff advised the applicants that they could: • Seek a variance for the proposed location; • Relocate the structure to a conforming location; or • Remove the structure. In correspondence dated November 11, 2025, the applicants expressed disagreement with staff's interpretation, contending that the structure should instead be classified as a playhouse or tree house. On January 9, 2026, staff issued a formal written zoning determination concluding that the structure met the definition of an accessory structure and was therefore subject to the applicable zoning regulations. Staff also advised the applicants of their right to appeal that determination pursuant to the Zoning Code. The applicants filed a timely appeal on January 16, 2026, staying further enforcement proceedings pending review by the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Following a public hearing on February 18, 2026, the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals upheld staff's determination that the structure met the definition of an accessory structure. Following that action, the applicants were provided with three options: 1. File an Administrative Review through the Circuit Court in the time frame established by Illinois law. 2. Submit an application for zoning variances by May 22, 2026. 3. Remove the structure by August 20, 2026. Prior to the May 22 deadline, the applicants notified staff that they had elected to pursue variances from the setback requirements established in Table 2.104 of the Zoning Code. Table 2.104 establishes the bulk regulations for accessory structures within single-family residential zoning districts. The subject property is zoned R1-L, Single-Family Low Density. Accessory structures are required to maintain minimum rear and interior side setbacks of six (6) feet. However, when the roof midpoint exceeds fifteen (15) feet in height, the required setbacks increase by one (1) additional foot for each foot or fraction thereof above fifteen (15) feet. Based upon the plans submitted by the applicant, staff calculated the roof midpoint to be approximately 18.3 feet above grade. Accordingly, the required rear and interior side setbacks increase from six (6) feet to ten (10) feet. The proposed accessory structure is located approximately: Jeffery D. Schielke Government Center ● 100 N. Island Ave ● Batavia, IL 60510 ● 630-454-2000 ● www.BataviaIL.gov Page 10 of 55  • 4.5 feet from the interior side property line (east) • 6.66 feet from the rear property line (north) Accordingly, approval of two separate setback variances are required for the structure to remain in its current location. Staff notes that the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals has historically been reluctant to grant variances associated with the additional setback requirements created by increased accessory structure height. Relief from these standards has more commonly been considered through Planned Developments, where overall site design, building placement, and mitigating circumstances can be evaluated comprehensively. The applicants state that significant drainage and standing water exist throughout much of the rear and side yard following rainfall events, making much of the property unsuitable for a permanent accessory structure. According to the applicant, the northeast corner of the property represents the only practical location where the structure can be constructed without recurring flooding. Staff notes that it is the responsibility of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether these site conditions constitute the type of practical difficulty contemplated by the variance standards established in the Zoning Code. Should the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals determine that a recommendation of approval is appropriate, staff suggests discussion of the following potential conditions of approval: • That the variance shall become null and void if the accessory structure is substantially damaged, destroyed, or voluntarily removed. • That the existing deciduous and evergreen trees adjacent to the accessory structure shall be maintained. If any tree is removed or dies, it shall be replaced with comparable landscaping approved by staff. • That the exterior finish of the accessory structure be limited to natural wood tones or earth-tone colors. • The Commission may also wish to discuss whether modifications to the roof design could reduce the overall height of the structure and, consequently, reduce the amount of variance relief requested. Review of Findings: The Zoning Board of Appeals is to consider the information submitted by the applicant and provided by staff, together with the information given at the public hearing. Staff has listed each required finding below and a draft of potential Zoning Board of Appeals response in the affirmative to each based finding on the submitted material and correspondence received to date. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the required findings when making its recommendation to the City Council. 1. Finding A: There are unique circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, (where) strict application of the Zoning Code would create an unnecessary hardship or other practical difficulty, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, and deprive the property owner of property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district. Jeffery D. Schielke Government Center ● 100 N. Island Ave ● Batavia, IL 60510 ● 630-454-2000 ● www.BataviaIL.gov Page 11 of 55  Response: The property is subject to unique circumstances, as a result of significant drainage and flooding issues. The majority of the rear yard area, during heavy rainfall events contains standing water, resulting in the inability to reasonably locate an accessory structure in a different location on the property. While several other properties experience minor flooding in the vicinity, it is not to the extent experienced at 1120 Essex Court. Staff feels this Finding has been met. 2. Finding B: Such unique circumstances were not created by the applicant. Response: The property was platted in 1968, and the residence was constructed in 1971 in compliance with regulations in effect at that time. Unfortunately, the stormwater requirements of that era fall short of the present Kane County Stormwater Ordinance standards. As a result, the original subdivision failed to adequately address stormwater in its original design and lacks a common stormwater detention basin commonly found with developments today. Staff feels this Finding has been met. 3. Finding C: The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. Response: The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. Other properties with unique topography and drainage issues would be entitled to the same right to request a variance from the Zoning Code. Staff feels this Finding has been met. Finding D: The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The accessory structure is sited in the northeast corner of the property, with limited visibility from both Essex Court and Lexington Lane. Additionally, the presence of several mature trees provide screening, mitigating any visual impact the structure may have for most of the year. Staff feels this Finding has been met. Staff Recommendation: Should the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval of the requested variances, staff recommends they take the following actions: 1. Open and conduct the Public Hearing. 2. After all members of the public that wish to speak have spoken; and the ZBA has determined no additional information is needed, close the Public Hearing. 3. Review the Findings for Approval of the variances, as drafted by Staff. Staff has prepared the draft findings based on the information available prior to the hearing. The Commission may modify them based on information presented at the hearing. 4. Make a motion to recommend approval of the two (2) variances at 1120 Essex Court to allow: a. A variance from Table 2.104- Additional Regulations B, allow an accessory structure to have a interior side yard setback of approximately 4.5 feet, instead of the required 10 feet, a variance of approximately 5.5 feet. b. A variance from Table 2.104- Additional Regulations B, allow an accessory structure to have a rear yard setback of approximately 6.66 feet, instead of the required 10 feet, a variance of approximately 3.34 feet. Subject to the following conditions of approval: a. In the even the accessory structure is significantly damaged, destroyed, or removed, the Jeffery D. Schielke Government Center ● 100 N. Island Ave ● Batavia, IL 60510 ● 630-454-2000 ● www.BataviaIL.gov Page 12 of 55  variance shall become null and void. b. The property owner shall maintain the existing deciduous and evergreen trees near the accessory structure. In the event a tree is removed or dies, the property owner shall replace it with comparable landscaping approved by staff. Attachments: Plans and Survey C: Mayor and City Council Department Heads Jill and Chris Sedivy, Applicant Jeffery D. Schielke Government Center ● 100 N. Island Ave ● Batavia, IL 60510 ● 630-454-2000 ● www.BataviaIL.gov Page 13 of 55 Page 14 of 55 Page 15 of 55 Page 16 of 55 Page 17 of 55 Page 18 of 55 Page 19 of 55 Page 20 of 55 Page 21 of 55 Page 22 of 55 Page 23 of 55 Page 24 of 55 Page 25 of 55 Page 26 of 55 Page 27 of 55 VARIANCE REQUEST Treehouse/Play Equipment Classification at 1120 Essex Court Page 28 of 55 VARIANCE REQUEST Page 29 of 55 THE CASE TO KEEP THE PLAYHOUSE The facts, the City’s own guidance, and why the structure should stay • No applicable code: Batavia has no classification for a treehouse or playhouse — it is neither defined nor prohibited in the Zoning Code. • Built on the City’s guidance: Before construction in 2023, City staff guided the homeowners that it qualified as Play Equipment (Section 2.106); it was designed and built to that guidance. • Reclassified after the fact: The City later deemed it an Accessory Structure (Table 2.104), applying height and setback limits never raised in years of pre-build inquiries. • Flooding forces the location: Recurring flooding makes the lower yard unsafe to build on; the dry, elevated ground is the only safe spot and drives the modest height and setback at issue. • Relief sought: In the alternative, grant a height and setback variance so a safe, good-faith, City- guided play structure can remain. Page 30 of 55 FLOODING RENDERS THE YARD UNUSABLE A difficulty unique to the property • Documented backyard flooding and ponding, noted in City correspondence (2019–2020), leaves much of the yard unusable for children’s play. • The only safe, dry location is on higher ground, which dictated where the structure was placed and how it was elevated. • This is a physical condition of the land itself, the kind of unique circumstance that supports an area variance. • The difficulty arises from the property, not from owner preference or convenience. Page 31 of 55 HEIGHT SETBACK VARIANCE Why the Playhouse Should Remain Request for Height and Setback Variances Reliance on City Guidance •Contacted the City before construction to determine requirements. •Emailed the Building Commissioner (Jeff Albertson) (7/24/23) and followed up with phone calls with no response. •A third-party inquiry received City guidance on 8/3/23 indicating the structure qualified as play equipment. (Tim Ostermann) •Construction proceeded based on that guidance and a reasonable belief that the project complied with City requirements. Unique Property Conditions Create Hardship •Large portions of the rear yard are subject to flooding and standing water. •The playhouse is located on the only practical area of dry, elevated ground suitable for safe use. •Relocation would place the structure in flood-prone areas, reducing safety and functionality. Minimal Impact on Neighbors or the Community •Nestled within mature trees and screened from neighboring properties. •Maintains the residential character of the neighborhood. •No impact on traffic, drainage, utilities, parking, or public safety. •Located outside all drainage and utility easements as confirmed by the survey. Variance is the Minimum Relief Necessary •Height is driven by the nature of the structure and existing terrain. Treehouse, by definition, is a house amongst the trees. •Setback relief is limited to what is necessary to utilize the only safe location on the property. •The request preserves a family recreational amenity without creating hardship for others. Requested Action Approve the height and setback variances and allow the playhouse to remain in its current location. This request reflects good-faith reliance on City guidance, unique site conditions, minimal neighborhood impact, and the reasonable use of residential property consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Page 32 of 55 STANDARDS OF A VARIANCE — ALL MET Chapter 5.5 findings for the Zoning Board of Appeals • Hardship: Known flooding issue documented years prior to building the treehouse that makes the side yard unusable and unsafe to build the treehouse. • Communication: Homeowners communicated with the city prior to any building seeking guidance as there is no code for treehouse/playhouse. Given the guidance of play equipment, that is how the treehouse/playhouse was located. • Governance: Without clear definitions, interpretation becomes subjective, creating unnecessary hardship for future homeowners. The code should clearly distinguish playhouses and treehouses from accessory structures. The lack of clarity in the code creates a culture of government by convenience. • Traffic: it generates no traffic and does not increase street congestion or hazards. • Public welfare: granting relief will not harm the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Page 33 of 55 Now and Future • Throughout this process, we acted as responsible homeowners should: we sought guidance from the City, relied on the information available to us, and proceeded in good faith. Mr. Lalonde acknowledged that the ordinance "doesn't really say specifically anything about playhouses" and recognized that even traditional treehouses are often supported by posts rather than solely by a tree, underscoring the lack of clear standards in the current code. • The hardship before you was not created by disregard for the rules, but by a regulatory gap and a lack of timely, definitive direction when guidance was requested. To now deny this variance based on definitions that do not clearly exist in the ordinance would effectively hold homeowners accountable for ambiguities created by the code itself. This case has revealed a need to clarify and strengthen the ordinance for future residents. Finally, improving the ordinance in the future (to be aligned with surrounding communities) without acknowledging and granting variance to the current situation would create an unhealthy precedent for residents. Page 34 of 55 APPEAL CONTEXT & OVERVIEW Page 35 of 55 APPEAL BACKGROUND Pre-Build/Due-Diligence Multiple/formal inquires with City staff over multiple years; initial inquiries in 2023 about play equipment and a treehouse. -including building commissioner. Assembly/Build Due to no direct response to inquiries, homeowners received assistance from a third party to finalize compliance. Per final email conversation with Tim Ostermann (city building inspector) treehouse assembly began with the explicit understanding of compliance with “Play Equipment” (Section 2.106). Stop work/ Permit submittal/Appeal City staff classified it as an “Accessory Structure” under Table 2.104. Assembly on hold Provided drawings, photos, permit materials, and a narrative. No utilities or habitable features; not commercial, rented, storage or adult occupancy. Homeowners contend it fits “Play Equipment” (Section 2.106). Page 36 of 55 RECREATIONAL USE & FORM Page 37 of 55 RECREATIONAL PLAYHOUSE USE Designed solely for children’s play • Treehouse-style recreational structure scaled for children; not designed for adult functional occupancy. • No utilities or habitable features: no plumbing, electrical, HVAC, insulation, or accessory living/storage use. • No gatherings, rentals, or commercial activity; impacts limited to normal children’s play. • Posts/piers are safety supports typical of elevated play equipment. • Main playhouse/treehouse assembled- twist slide, rock holds, and tire swing uninstalled currently. Page 38 of 55 ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION Page 39 of 55 PLAY EQUIPMENT DEFINITION Section 2.106 sets a functional standard • “Play Equipment” means a freestanding apparatus for recreational activity, including swings, slides and “similar items.” • The Code adds no limits on height, materials, platforms, craftsmanship, or custom/elevated construction—classification turns on use and function. • The 1120 Essex Court treehouse/playhouse is freestanding and recreational; anchoring/supports do not exclude it, so it should be regulated as play equipment. • Sedivy treehouse/playhouse commences per Tim Ostermann’s email response(“Please see the attached zoning code section 2.106K”) to formal third-party inquiry. Page 40 of 55 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS Page 41 of 55  NOT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Section 2.106 describes accessory structures as detached, permanent subordinate buildings incidental to the principal dwelling—typified by garages, sheds, canopies, and cabanas that support residential functions such as storage, vehicle shelter, or occupancy-related use. The treehouse/playhouse is instead incidental to children’s recreation, not to residential living functions, and it neither stores household items nor shelters vehicles. Staff’s emphasis on permanence and anchoring is not dispositive: many recreational installations remain in place for years and are anchored for safety. Treating construction method as determinative risks mixing safety-driven design with functional intent; zoning interpretation should follow actual use and the Code’s distinct treatment of recreational equipment. Reference the listed examples and language- the structure does not meet the requirements of accessory structure classification and should not be regulated as such. Page 42 of 55 GROUND SUPPORT & PERMANENCE Page 43 of 55 ANCHORING IS NOT DETERMINATIVE Safety practice, not reclassification The Zoning Code does not define Play Equipment by the absence of ground supports, nor does it say anchoring converts recreational equipment into an accessory structure. Ground supports and concrete-set posts are widely recommended for elevated play systems to prevent tipping and improve stability. “Permanence” is relative: many play structures are intended to remain for years, and the Code draws no time-based line between temporary and long-term equipment. Classification by construction technique risks inconsistent enforcement and penalizes safer, better-built installations. Interpretation is based on purpose and use. Here, the evidence supports the homeowner’s choices were driven by safety and durability—not an intent to create a residential accessory building. Page 44 of 55 SITING RATIONALE Page 45 of 55 FLOODING & SITING CONTEXT Documented backyard flooding Recurring ponding noted in City correspondence (2019– 2020) constrained safe placement for children’s play. Good-faith location choice Sited on higher, drier ground to reduce risk—consistent with the purpose of play-equipment setbacks, not to evade rules. No off-site impacts Does not worsen drainage, encroach into rights-of-way, or interfere with neighboring properties; owners sought City guidance (incl. 2023). Page 46 of 55 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT & SUPPORT Absence of adverse impacts; neighbor endorsements Page 47 of 55 NEIGHBOR SUPPORT, NO HARM Multiple neighbors submitted written endorsements stating the treehouse/playhouse creates no safety, privacy, noise, or visual impacts. They report no commercial use, no added traffic, and no change to neighborhood character— describing it instead as a positive, family-oriented feature. The absence of complaints supports treating the Playhouse/Treehouse as benign play equipment rather than an intrusive accessory building. Community sentiment is not determinative, but it reinforces that the requested relief aligns with neighborhood welfare and does not confer a special privilege. Page 48 of 55 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY Communications and Compliance Efforts Page 49 of 55  CITY COMMUNICATIONS & COMPLIANCE • Ongoing outreach with City staff over multiple years; initial inquiries in 2023 about play equipment and a treehouse. • Submitted drawings, photos, and a permit application when requested; provided materials within stated timeframes. • Immediately complied with the cease-construction directive and maintained respectful, transparent communication. • Staff acknowledged miscommunications; appeal is appropriate to resolve a reasonable code- interpretation dispute, and homeowners remain willing to modify features to ensure compliance. Page 50 of 55 Playhouse/Treehouse in Batavia – Is the current Zoning Code/administration/inspection/enforcement/community outreach serving residents fair and responsible. Will a future family make a similar mistake? Page 51 of 55 REQUESTED RELIEF Page 52 of 55 RELIEF REQUESTED Correct zoning classification sought • Reverse the administrative determination classifying the treehouse/playhouse as an accessory structure. • Find it qualifies as Play Equipment under Section 2.106, based on recreational use, design intent, and functional characteristics. • No variance sought—only consistent, good-faith classification aligned with Code intent, safety, and lack of neighborhood impact. Page 53 of 55 From: Tanya Miller To: Rackow, Drew Subject: Public Hearing Comment: Essex Ct. Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 8:06:03 AM Caution: This message originated outside of the City of Batavia -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. If you have any doubt, contact the sender by phone to confirm. To whom it may concern: I am writing in support of the Sedivy family's application for a variance from the Batavia Zoning Code. I am the next-door neighbor of the property in question, located at 1131 Lexington Lane (Lot 24 in the included Plat of Survey). As a neighboring property owner, I want to express that I fully support this request and do not have any concerns about the proposed structure or its placement. I believe granting this request would be reasonable and appropriate considering the Sedivy family's application, the intent of use of the play structure, and the characteristics of their property, including the grade/elevation of their yard. The Sedivy family's play structure will not negatively impact the surrounding properties, neighborhood appearance, property values, or the general enjoyment of neighboring homes. Homeowners should have the opportunity to make practical and positive improvements to their property when those improvements are done responsibly and with consideration for those around them. The Sedivy family has the support of the vast majority of their neighbors, and would be adding to the enjoyment and community of our neighborhood by completing this structure. I respectfully ask the Board to take into consideration that immediate neighbors who are most directly affected by this request are supportive of the variance being requested. Thank you for your consideration. Tanya Miller 1131 Lexington Ln. Page 54 of 55 From: Steve Wolfram To: Rackow, Drew Subject: Zoning Variance for 12-26-226-013 (Sedivy treehouse) Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 6:02:56 AM Caution: This message originated outside of the City of Batavia -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. If you have any doubt, contact the sender by phone to confirm. Please note that we support granting the zoning variance for the property We live at 1112 Essex Ct in Batavia (northeast "corner" of the Essex Court cul-de-sac). Steven A Wolfram Jennifer S Wolfram Page 55 of 55