Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 Public Hearing - April 14, 2026
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 Public Hearing - April 14, 2026
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Division 2 convened on April 14, 2026, under Chairperson Craig Von Dalen, with members Patrice Duckett Brown, James Duke, and Beth Brandon. The board heard a variety of variance requests, including continuances, expedited petitions, and six contested cases. Key decisions included granting a use variance for an AutoZone store on Michigan Road, approving a larger secondary dwelling unit on Central Avenue, and allowing a six-foot front yard fence on East 33rd Street, while denying a request for a third freestanding sign on West 86th Street.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes from the March 10, 2026, meeting (motion by Duke, second by Duckett Brown, unanimous).
- Waiver of Rules: A motion to waive procedural rules for expedited petitions was approved (motion by Duke, second by Brandon, unanimous).
- Expedited Petitions (unanimously granted):
- Case 2026-M02-001 (6417 Carrollton Ave): Modification of commitments for a tattoo parlor.
- Case 2026-DV2-005 (1316 E Minnesota St): Side setback variance for a single-family dwelling.
- Case 2026-DV2-008 (2405, 2407, 2409 Massachusetts Ave): Variance for commercial building access.
- Case 2026-DV2-012 (239 E Caven St): Lot width variance for a multi-unit house.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case 2026-DV2-004 (5935 W 86th St – Taco Bell sign): Susan Blair, president of the Pike Township Residents Association, opposed the petition, citing lack of need, sign size (10x10 feet), and potential to block views of adjacent Fairfield Inn sign. She noted that the integrated center sign has available panels and that additional signage would contribute to visual clutter.
- Case 2026-UV2-003 (5675 Michigan Road – AutoZone): Rick Turney, an adjoining neighbor, spoke in support, emphasizing that a vacant building attracts crime and that the proposed security fence (six-foot solid) would be beneficial. He also noted that the building sits well above flood levels.
- Case 2026-DV2-006 (2305 Central Ave – secondary dwelling unit): Petitioner Michael Ledbetter stated that the unit is for family/friends, not an Airbnb, and that the work was done in good faith after initial permit issues.
- Case 2026-DV2-007 (229 McKim Ave – half-story wall height): The petitioner (Samuel Salazar) argued that the design reduces visual mass compared to a compliant alternative.
- Case 2026-DV2-010 (1346 W 23rd St – side setbacks): The petitioner (Jonathan Howe) noted that the foundation was already poured and that the owner is investing in the community.
- Case 2026-DV2-011 (215 E 33rd St – fence): Petitioner Ricky Woolridge explained that a six-foot fence existed historically on the property line and that the fence is needed for privacy, security, and pet containment.
Discussion Items
- Case 2026-DV2-004 (5935 W 86th St – Taco Bell monument sign): Petitioner Mark Baston sought a variance for a third freestanding sign (10x10 feet) along West 86th Street, claiming poor visibility of the building from the road. Staff noted that the property is part of an integrated center with an existing multi-tenant pylon sign that has an available 24-square-foot panel that Taco Bell has rights to use. The pylon sign would be taller and smaller, meeting ordinance requirements. Staff recommended denial, citing sign proliferation (eight total signs in the corridor) and safety concerns. The board voted 0-4 to deny the variance.
- Case 2026-UV2-003 (5675 Michigan Road – AutoZone): Petitioner Joseph Cauldron argued that AutoZone operates as a retail store (no on-site repairs) and fits the C3 zoning better than the C4 designation required for auto parts stores. He offered commitments: no on-site auto service/repair, posting signs prohibiting customer repairs, and installing a six-foot solid fence along the east and north sides. Staff recommended denial, noting that 41 other C3 uses are available, the site is in a floodway fringe, and there is a likelihood of informal repairs. The board voted 4-0 to grant the variance with the three commitments.
- Case 2026-DV2-006 (2305 Central Ave – secondary dwelling unit size): The petitioner requested a variance to allow a 949-square-foot secondary dwelling unit (max 720 square feet). The unit was built without permits initially, but the owners later obtained permits and inspections. Staff argued the hardship was self-imposed and that the size could be reduced. The board voted 4-0 to grant the variance.
- Case 2026-DV2-007 (229 McKim Ave – half-story wall height): The petitioner sought a variance for a 9.5-foot exterior wall on the top floor (max 2 feet under the half-story definition). Staff recommended denial, stating the design could be made compliant. During testimony, the petitioner agreed to reduce the wall height to 6 feet. The board voted 4-0 to grant the variance with the amended commitment.
- Case 2026-DV2-010 (1346 W 23rd St – side setbacks): The petitioner requested 1-foot side setbacks (5 feet required) for an addition that was already partially constructed. Staff noted the lot width of 40 feet is standard, and the addition triples the house size. The board voted 3-1 (Von Dalen dissenting) to grant the variance.
- Case 2026-DV2-011 (215 E 33rd St – fence): The petitioner requested a variance for a six-foot opaque fence in the front yard and within the clear sight triangle. Staff noted that the existing historical fence was a legal non-conformity and that the fence could be stepped down or removed. The board voted 3-1 (Von Dalen dissenting) to grant the variance.
Key Outcomes
- Continuances:
- Case 2025-DV2-035 (5100 Knowlton Rd) continued to May 19, 2026, with new notice (unanimous).
- Case 2026-DV2-009 (5360 Central Ave) continued and transferred to Division 1’s May 12, 2026, hearing with new notice (unanimous).
- Denied: Case 2026-DV2-004 (Taco Bell sign) – vote 0-4.
- Granted:
- Case 2026-UV2-003 (AutoZone) – vote 4-0, with commitments.
- Case 2026-DV2-006 (secondary dwelling unit) – vote 4-0.
- Case 2026-DV2-007 (half-story wall height) – vote 4-0, with commitment to reduce wall to 6 feet.
- Case 2026-DV2-010 (side setbacks) – vote 3-1.
- Case 2026-DV2-011 (front yard fence) – vote 3-1.
- All expedited petitions were granted unanimously.
- Next Meeting: The board noted that indecisive votes would be automatically continued to May 19, 2026.
Note: The meeting transcript did not include an agenda or minutes for reference.
Meeting Transcript
Call to order. Hello, everyone. Thank you. So public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning to Appeals, Division 2. I am Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson to Division 2. The other board members present are Patrice Ducket Brown, James Duke, and Beth Brandon. Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today for the division of planning are Bryce Patz, current planning administrator. Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1. Robert Eulenh, Senior Planner, Josh Laveck, Senior Planner, Marty Weiste, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board. The Board has copies of the zoning ordinance that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure. The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. As each non-expedited case is called petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board. Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify. Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case being heard shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements and arguments in support of the petition. Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence. Statements and arguments in opposition to the petition. Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter and the initial presentations. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal at the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order to the board to grant a variance. If petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing. The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching decisions on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of a parking area, the dedication of right-of-ways are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for the granted variants to be valid. Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements. Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments on of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services. A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board. The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number. Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary. Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited. Please be courteous and orderly at all times. And please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off. There are four members present today. It requires three votes to take action on any request. We will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuances. If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the May 19th, 2026 hearing. Board members, you have been provided with minutes for our March 10th, 2026 meeting. Have we got those in the packet? Got it? Okay, very good. For the March 10th, 2026 meeting. If there are no deletions or additions, I will take a motion for their approval.
openpublica.com