Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 3 Hearing - June 21, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 3 Hearing - June 21, 2022
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals (Division 3) convened on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, at approximately 6:15 PM. Chairperson Joanna Taft presided with members Roderick Bohannan and Cameron Radford. A fourth member, Percy Bland, was absent, resulting in only three board members present. The meeting addressed multiple continuances, expedited petitions, and two contested cases. All actions required unanimous votes due to the three-member panel; a split vote would lead to an automatic continuance.
Expedited Petitions (Consent Calendar)
- The board voted unanimously to waive its rules of procedure and approve all expedited petitions en bloc without individual testimony. A total of six petitions were approved via a single ballot:
- 2022 DV3-020: Variance to permit a six-foot fence along 14th Street (maximum 3.5 feet allowed).
- 2022 UV3-016: Variance of use for a banquet facility in a C-3 zone.
- 2022 UV3-013: Variance for a single-family detached dwelling with modified setbacks on a lot where not permitted.
- 2022 DV3-023 (amended): Variance to allow a duplex on a smaller lot with reduced open space.
- 2022 DV3-021 (amended): Variance for a development standard adjustment (setback and open space).
- 2022 DV3-017 (amended): Variance for a development standard change (setback and open space).
Continuances and Withdrawals
- 2022 DV3-014 (337 Parkway Avenue): Continued to July 19, 2022, for cause. Petitioner sought more time to negotiate with neighbors and staff. Remonstrator Jean Salzman opposed further continuance but agreed if discussions focused on a single-dwelling plan. Staff supported this as the final continuance.
- 2022 DV3-022 (6945 Pendleton Pike): Continued to July 19, 2022, due to attorney unavailability and ongoing plan revisions. No remonstrators.
- 2022 DV3-004 (address unspecified): Continued to August 16, 2022, to allow more time for resolution. Remonstrator counsel present; staff and petitioner agreed. This was the final continuance.
- 2022 DV3-018 (24 East Street in Southport): Continued to July 19, 2022, without additional notice, to allow submission of elevation plans. No remonstrators.
- 2022 UV3-008 (10195 East 86th Street): Withdrawn by petitioner prior to hearing; acknowledged by board.
- 2022 UV3-010 (7500 East 30th Street): Automatic continuance to July 19, 2022; acknowledged.
- 2022 UV3-014 (7715 East 42nd Street): Automatic continuance to July 19, 2022; acknowledged.
- 2022 DV3-024 (6832 East 82nd Street): Automatic continuance filed by a city-county councilor acting as remonstrator; continued to July 19, 2022.
- 2022 UV3-018 (7801 East 38th Street): Automatic continuance filed by registered neighborhood organization; continued to July 19, 2022.
- 2022 UV3-009 (2650 North Franklin Road) and 2022 UV3-011 (175 Southern Plaza Drive): Records corrected to note that continuances were filed by petitioners, not neighborhood organizations. Both continued to July 19, 2022.
- 2022 UV3-015 (511 Madison Avenue): Automatic continuance to July 19, 2022; acknowledged.
Discussion Items
Case 2022 DV3-009 (2650 North Franklin Road) – Split Petition
- Petitioner (David Kingan): Sought a split vote on two sets of variances: Part A – two setback variances (27-foot east side setback instead of 30 feet, and 21-foot rear setback instead of 30 feet) for an existing truck repair facility; Part B – a variance to retain barbed wire on 22% of the fence perimeter (originally 100%, 78% already removed). Petitioner argued the setbacks existed before purchase, and barbed wire was needed for security against vandalism. Warren Township Development Association expressed support.
- Staff: Recommended approval for Part A (setbacks) but recommended denial for Part B (barbed wire). Staff noted that barbed wire is prohibited in the I-4 district except for agricultural or public safety uses; the property was noncompliant with no prior variance. They argued that removing barbed wire would not create a practical difficulty and that alternative security measures (e.g., video surveillance) could be used.
- Board Vote: Part A (setbacks) passed unanimously (3 yes). Part B (barbed wire) resulted in a split vote (Bohannan yes; Taft and Radford no), leading to an automatic continuance to July 19, 2022. The petitioner then indicated intent to withdraw Part B.
Case 2022 DV3-019 (11741 Prospect Street) – Lot Frontage Variance
- Petitioner (Eric Carter): Requested a variance to split a 7-acre parcel into two lots, with the second lot having only 40 feet of street frontage (required 125 feet). The lot would be served by a driveway from the front lot. Petitioner argued the adjacent property across the street had a longer driveway, so safety was not a concern.
- Staff: Recommended denial, citing public safety hazards for emergency responders (difficulty locating the dwelling, wasted response time). The parcel has 400 feet of total frontage, allowing a compliant split without variance. Staff found that strict application of the ordinance would not create a practical difficulty.
- Board Vote: Unanimous denial (0 yes, 3 no). The petition was denied subject to adoption of findings of fact.
Case 2022 UV3-017 (1146 Tecumseh Street) – Accessory Structure and Pool Variance
- Petitioner (Jason Wolf): Proposed demolishing an existing single-family home and constructing a carriage house (accessory dwelling) with a swimming pool in the front yard. The carriage house would exceed the maximum size for an accessory unit (804 sq. ft. vs. permitted 720 sq. ft.), and the pool would be located in front of the building line. The owner lived next door and intended to use the pool for the family. Petitioner noted an existing similar situation at 2028 North Park Avenue. He requested feedback from the board.
- Staff: Opposed the variances, but noted the petitioner indicated a desire for more discussion. Staff cautioned that a continuance does not guarantee a compromise.
- Board Action: The petitioner requested a continuance to further discuss with staff. Motion to continue passed unanimously. The case was continued to a future date (presumably July 19, 2022, though not explicitly stated).
Key Outcomes
- Expedited Petitions: All six were approved unanimously via a single ballot.
- Continuances: Six cases continued to July 19, 2022 (or later), with noted conditions. One continuance to August 16, 2022. One petition withdrawn.
- 2022 DV3-009 Part A: Approved (setbacks). Part B automatically continued due to split vote; petitioner later indicated withdrawal.
- 2022 DV3-019: Denied unanimously.
- 2022 UV3-017: Continued for further discussion.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned after addressing all agenda items, with no further business.
Meeting Transcript
I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 3. I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division 3. Other board members present to my left. Roderick Bohannan to my right, Cameron Radford. And we are expecting Percy Bland in a few minutes. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie Honeya, Principal Planner 2. Jeffrey York, Senior Planner. Robert Ulenhaik, senior planner, Marlene Irahetta, senior planner, Genesis Hill, Associate Planner. Heather Steffen, Senior Specialist and Secretary to the Board. Matt Pleasant is the current planning administrator. The board is copies of the zoning ordinances 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 the 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 petition petitioner will be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and a summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it's 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 for the board to grant a variance. If the 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 a decision on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid. Compliance with the conditions imposed by the board must be approved by an 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 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. Please note that there are only four uh board members present today. We we hope we'll have four. Right now we have three. Um your request will need three votes to take action on a request. So if an indecisive vote occurs, um your petition will be automatically uh continued to the next hearing of the board. So if you are worried that right now we have three or that we will only have four, and we could have a um uh indecisive vote, then um we will consider uh uh you can ask for continuance. Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures? If not, we will continue with special will or be actually before we continue with special requests. I do want to ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners. So I'm gonna ask the board member to make a motion. So I'm gonna ask the board member to make a motion.
openpublica.com