Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - September 2, 2026
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - September 2, 2026
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) convened on September 2, 2026, under Chairman Scott McCallton. The board reviewed several variance requests and one special exception application. Key actions included approval of minutes, withdrawal of one case, deferral of a live entertainment permit, and votes on four setback variance requests. The board applied the five hardship criteria read into the record by the city attorney.
Consent Calendar
- The August meeting minutes were approved unanimously by voice vote.
- Case BZA 26-53 (2020 East 23rd Street) was withdrawn without prejudice by the applicant per a motion that passed unanimously.
Discussion Items
-
BZA 26-45 – 32 North Larchmont Avenue
Applicant Skip Pond sought a setback reduction from 5 feet to 3 feet on both sides to build a two-story dwelling on a 20-foot-wide lot (original 25-foot lot reduced by deed in 1925). Board members debated whether the narrowness constituted a hardship. Some members (Brock, Betbees) supported the variance due to exceptional narrowness and lack of opposition. Others (Manuel, Gregory, Rashid, Moore, Chair) argued the lot’s condition existed at purchase and was not a self-created hardship, and that the applicant took a risk. The first motion to approve failed 3–5. A subsequent motion to deny passed 5–3 (Geyer, Manuel, Gregory, Rashid, Moore, and Chair voting yes; Betbees and Brock voting no). -
BZA 26-46 – 4306 Inwood Lane
Applicant Edward Stokes requested a front setback reduction from 25 feet to 10 feet to subdivide an existing lot and build a second single-family home. Staff clarified that the lot had not yet been subdivided and that the request effectively sought to place two principal dwellings on one lot. A neighbor (Doris Samuel of 4307 Inwood Lane) spoke in opposition, citing parking, traffic, neighborhood character, and possible restrictive covenants. Board members noted the neighbor opposition and that the hardship would be self-created upon subdivision. The motion to deny passed 8–0. -
BZA 26-49 – 1423 East Main Street
This case sought a special exception permit for live entertainment. The applicant requested a deferral to October. Public comments were heard from two neighbors in opposition: Gary Laser (nearby resident) and Jerry Price (neighbor). They expressed concerns about noise, parking, and compatibility with the largely residential/light-industrial area. The board granted the deferral to the October meeting by unanimous voice vote. -
BZA 26-50 – 1003 South Willow Street
Applicant Jared O'Dell requested a rear setback reduction from 25 feet to 14 feet to build a 400-square-foot addition to an existing home. The lot is shallower (106 feet vs. typical 125) and an existing concrete pad (with plumbing) suggested a prior structure. The applicant sought to maintain side yard play space for children and minimize impervious surface. No public opposition was voiced. The board approved the variance 7–1, citing lot shape and historic non-conforming conditions. (Ms. Gregory dissented.) -
BZA 26-51 – 1308 Shady Circle
Applicant Vanessa Mercer, represented by Joe Martin, sought a rear setback reduction from 25 feet to 13.5 feet for a 925-square-foot addition and an ADU above an existing garage. The irregular lot shape resulted from a 1928 carve-out that sold a corner of the lot to a neighbor. All contiguous neighbors signed a letter of support. Board members debated: some (Manuel) opposed, arguing the lot was originally rectangular and the hardship was self-created by selling the corner; others (Betbees, Gregory, Rashid, Brock, Moore) supported the variance, noting the long-standing irregularity, neighbor support, and quality design. The motion to approve passed 5–3 (Geyer, Betbees, Gregory, Rashid, Brock, Moore in favor; Manuel and Chair opposed).
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: August minutes approved; BZA 26-53 withdrawn.
- BZA 26-45: Denied (motion to deny 5–3). Variance for side setbacks not granted.
- BZA 26-46: Denied (8–0). Front setback variance not granted.
- BZA 26-49: Deferred to October 2026 meeting.
- BZA 26-50: Approved (7–1). Rear setback variance granted.
- BZA 26-51: Approved (5–3). Rear setback variance granted.
Meeting Transcript
At this time, I'd like to ask all those who might speak today to be standing sort of. I'd like to ask everyone if you could please silence your vote. Good morning. My name is Scott McCallton, and I have the privilege to serve as the chairman of this board. I would like to extend the vote to our guests, and thank you for engaging in this process. When you come up to the voting speech, please sign in, adjust the mic, introduce yourself and tell us your relationship case. Refrain from repeating points that have already been made, and use the laser point referring to the thing on the screen behind you. Please keep your remarks clear, concise, and brief. The August minutes have been distributed. Do I have a motion to approve? Second. Second. Aye. The minutes are approved. I have one uh revision of the agenda. Case BZA 26-53 2020 East 23rd Street. The applicant has requested to withdraw this case. Therefore, I make a motion to withdraw without prejudice. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Manual. All those in favor say aye. Aye. That case is withdrawal. Concludes uh all revisions. We have no old business. We're gonna get down to the new business on the agenda today. But before we do, uh most every single case on the agenda today is for a setback variance. I have pulled up the hardship criteria that this board must find in order to grant a hardship criteria based upon a variance for a setback. I will now ask the city attorney to read this into the record, and then we will start with the next first case. Strict application of this code to relieve such difficulties or hardship only in accordance with the following criteria. One, that by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of enactment of the zoning regulations, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition of such piece of property. The strict application of this code would would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or undue hardships upon the owner to develop their property. Two, that the relief of the peculiar hardship practical difficulties or undue hardships granted by the board would not establish substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purpose of this code. Three, that the peculiar hardship practical difficulties and undue hardship or undue hardships apply to the particular land or building regardless of the owner. Four, that the peculiar hardship, practical difficulties or undue hardship have not been created by the property owner. And five, the peculiar hardship practical difficulties or undue hardships relate only to the premises for the benefit of which the variance is sought and would not be generally applicable to other premises in the city or the personal conditions of the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is BZA 2645, located at 32 North Larchmont Avenue. The applicant is skip pond. The property is zoned RN-1-5, residential single family neighborhood zone. It's in council district five. The applicant is citing the hardship as lot shape and size. Um near Northmore Road. This is just for context that it's a historic lot of record that was platted in 1923. Originally it was platted with a 25-foot lot width. And then over time, sometime between 1925, it was deeded to an adjacent property where it lost an additional five feet of width, making it now 20 feet wide. This is the applicant's narrative.
openpublica.com