Edgewood planners deny hotel’s request for 20x20 storage shed at 8 Marietta Court

The Town of Edgewood Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 17 denied a request from Aspire Hotels LLC to place a 20-by-20 accessory storage building at 8 Marietta Court, the site of the Comfort Inn & Suites. The commission voted unanimously to reject the variance after staff analysis concluded the request did not meet the ordinance standards for relief.

Casey McCall, agent for the applicant, told the commission the structure was intended to store snow‑removal and property‑management equipment and would reduce hazardous off‑site hauling during winter storms. "We uh are hoping to ask for a variance in the setback requirements for our property at the hotel here in Edgewood at the Comfort in Suites located at 8 Marietta Court," he said during his presentation, describing operational pressure when I‑40 closes and the need to stage equipment closer to the property.

Staff recommended denial. Planner Brennan Williams reviewed Town zoning criteria (section 34A1A–D and chapters of the comprehensive plan) and said the record did not show the kind of unique site characteristics that justify a variance. "Staff is recommending that that this 20 2026 108 case number uh be denied," Williams said, citing the town’s goals for orderly growth, separation from streets and prevention of overcrowding.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on exact setback measurements, potential loss of parking and fire access near the cul‑de‑sac. The applicant acknowledged different plan notations (roughly five to eight feet from the front and eight to 15 feet from the side, depending on measurement point) and said rerouting access into the existing parking area would sacrifice one or two required parking spaces. Commissioners also noted three to five solar carport structures on the hotel site that staff said appear to sit inside setback areas, which staff characterized as evidence of an overdeveloped site and a self‑created hardship.

After deliberation about whether the applicant had established an "unnecessary hardship" under the ordinance, Commissioner Hutchinson moved to approve the variance; Commissioner West seconded. On the roll call the commissioners registered no votes in favor and the clerk announced the variance failed. "So Mr. McCall, what that means is uh the variance was not approved," was stated for the record.

Staff advised the applicant on next steps: the applicant may reapply with a different siting or reduced footprint and is encouraged to work with planning staff to identify options that meet setback, parking and fire‑access requirements.