Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - January 15, 2026 - Public Hearing on Appeal for 711 North Division Street
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – January 15, 2026
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on an appeal filed by Christopher Warn (owner of 711 North Division Street) challenging the Code Enforcement Officer’s determination that uses on the property—specifically indoor and outdoor storage—are not permitted in the C-4 Neighborhood Commercial District. The board also considered whether those uses constitute a legal pre‑existing nonconforming use under Section 575-44. The meeting lasted from 7:30 p.m. to approximately 9:30 p.m. and included testimony from the applicant’s attorney, a public speaker, and deliberation among board members.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Eric Warner (resident of Buchanan, NY, owner of Friday Wild Care Inc., a landscaping company operating from the property) testified that the property has been used as a contractor’s yard for decades. He stated he employs 13–15 Peekskill residents, keeps the yard clean, and argued that a towing company also using the yard is a contractor by definition (e.g., contracted with AAA or the city). He urged the board to uphold the appeal, warning that a negative decision would affect local jobs and his business.
Discussion Items
- Applicant’s Presentation (David Cooper, attorney): Cooper argued that the combination of residential and commercial outdoor storage has existed since 1960 (when the lot was purchased by an excavation contractor) and continued uninterrupted through subsequent owners. He cited a 1982 certificate of occupancy stating the uses predate the zoning code. He referenced case law (People v. Perkins, Tartan Oil, Smith v. ZBA) to support that an increase in volume or intensity of a nonconforming use is not an illegal expansion. He maintained that the current uses (landscaping and towing) all fall under “commercial storage” and do not constitute an enlargement of the nonconforming use.
- Board Questions: Board members pressed Cooper on the specific pre‑zoning uses and whether the addition of a towing company represented a different use or an expansion. Cooper reiterated that the code does not draw distinctions between types of commercial storage, and that the only clearly delineated residential area is the house itself.
- Staff Input (Carol, city staff): Carol reviewed the code enforcement officer’s findings: complaints led to a visit; the officer observed outdoor storage of rocks, gravel, and approximately 13 vehicles; a violation was issued. She confirmed that the city’s records contain only one certificate of occupancy (1982) and no permits for changes. She also read Section 575-44A1, which prohibits enlargement, extension, or placement on a different portion of the lot of any nonconforming use.
- Site Visit Discussion: The board considered but did not pursue a site visit, agreeing that photographs and additional research would suffice.
- Chairperson’s Announcement: Chairperson Chris announced that he will not seek reappointment after his term expires in February 2026, marking his 12th year on the board and 26 years of combined service on the planning board and ZBA. He thanked members and staff and noted the need for new board members.
Key Outcomes
- Public Hearing Adjourned: The board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to February 19, 2026, at 7:30 p.m.
- Additional Information Requested: The board directed staff to research and provide:
- Clarification on how “unenclosed outdoor space” is treated regarding expansion of a nonconforming use.
- Details of a 2016 violation on the property (nature, scope, and disposition).
- Whether the code defines “contractor’s yard” or similar terms, and how towing companies are classified in the zoning code.
- Draft Resolution: The board instructed staff to prepare a draft resolution that identifies the specific nonconforming uses (residential and contractor’s yard/storage) and addresses the expansion issue, to be discussed at the next meeting.
- Minutes Approved: The minutes of the September 18, 2025 meeting were approved unanimously.
- Election of Officers: Postponed to the February meeting to allow for a full board in light of the chairperson’s impending departure.
Meeting Transcript
We're ready for the TV audience. Okay. All right. Good evening, everybody. Welcome. And happy new year to everybody in the audience and also watching us on local TV. This is the first meeting of the new year for the zoning board of appeals, and we have a single item but an important item on the agenda. And uh the applicant is uh Mr. Christopher Warren. He's uh located in 1641 Giga Drive in Jupiter, Florida. Uh the subject of this application is um an appeal of the code enforcement officer's determination pursuant to section 575-35 that the uses on the property under consideration are not permitted on lots in the zoning district where the property is located, as well as an interpretation of section 575-44 regarding non-conforming buildings and uses in order to determine whether the use of the property for inside and outside storage constitutes a legal pre-existing nonconforming use. Property locations at 711 North Division Street and is located within the C4 neighborhood commercial district. So in a nutshell, uh what's gonna happen is an appeal has been made by the applicant uh on a decision made by the code enforcement officer. Uh they have the light the right under general city law uh in order to do that, and they have filed such an appeal um in a timely fashion. Um so basically uh it's going to be our job uh to adjudicate the appeal. Uh we are going to listen to arguments from both the applicant as well as um information provided to us by our city staff and attorney, and it's going to be up to us to determine whether the appeal should be umored or not. Or it could be a possibility of some sort of a um lack of a better way, putting it a compromise decision. Uh it could be something that we find in terms of what the applicant is provided, we feel comfortable with. Um but it also could be also a combination of that along with information that has been provided to us by the city staff, um, and that's solely within our purview to do so. Um now before we get started, also I want to also mention, and if I haven't already, that this is also going to be a public hearing, although I think we have a few people here. Um but it is going to be a public hearing as well. So we are going to hear for from and I know we have people uh correspondence in our packet uh from others that have uh weighed in people uh that have weighed in on the on behalf of the applicant. Um and I know think we have this is not gonna be the type of situation where we're gonna have call-ins for um public hearing. Um but it's gonna be likely, uh moving just ahead a little bit that we are going to keep this public hearing open. Um and we'll we'll get into that more later. But before we get started, um at the advice of council, uh I would like to get a motion uh from the board to go into executive session. Uh so if I can have a motion to that, we would vote on that, and then once we do that, we're going to um leave the dais and then uh we'll get um counsel advice on on how we need to make sure we move forward on this in the proper way. Uh and we anticipate it to be no more than 10 or 15 minutes. So can I have a motion, please, to go into its executive session? I move we go into executive session. Okay, can have a second, please. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay, so from here in, so let's give ourselves to 755. Um we'll be back in 15 minutes. Thank you. All right, thank you. We're back in session. Uh thank you for your patience. We went a little over what we thought time-wise, but uh it was important for us to do. Uh before we uh start to hear uh arguments on this, uh I want to make a formal ask for a formal um I move to open the public hearing. Thank you. Second. Yes, we'd like to open the public hearing. So we have uh uh a what the hell is the damn name? No, it's a motion. We have one motion. Can I have a second, please?
openpublica.com