New Albany Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - August 4, 2026
New Albany Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - August 4, 2026
The New Albany Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on August 4, 2026, at 10:30 AM to hear three dockets: two special exception requests and one request to modify conditions of a prior approval. All five board members were present, and a minimum of three affirmative votes was required to carry any motion.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Docket B 1726 (Accessory Dwelling Unit): A neighboring resident who has lived on the block for 50 years spoke in opposition, describing the accessory structure as "the ugliest looking thing you can think of" and stating it does not fit the neighborhood of single-family homes. The resident noted the structure appeared to be converted from a garage and lacked proper landscaping.
Discussion Items
- Docket B 1726 – Phonias Morius, special exception for accessory dwelling unit at 2401 Fairmont Avenue: The applicant's representative, King Lynx, stated the structure originally existed on the property before purchase, was occupied by homeless persons, and has been renovated. He argued the special exception meets the comprehensive plan's goal of housing diversity and noted the Planning Commission recommended approval 7-1 on June 16, 2026. The applicant intended the unit for temporary stays by the owner or guests, not as a full-time rental. Staff reported that only an electrical permit was pulled for storage purposes, no certificate of occupancy was issued, no sewer tap was verified, and the property is not owner-occupied—contrary to the comprehensive plan's vision for ADUs. Staff also noted a history of attempts to circumvent the city's moratorium on multifamily housing, including misleading statements about dual electric meters and a Zillow advertisement for the unit. Staff recommended denial, citing lack of safety inspections and failure to meet special exception criteria. The board discussed whether conditions could remedy safety concerns, but ultimately found the applicant's pattern of non-compliance and the absence of owner occupancy weighed against approval. A motion to deny was made and seconded.
- Docket B 1926 – Adam Haley Roar, special exception for single-family dwelling at 4460 Kmer Miller Road: Leslie Woods, representing the applicant, explained that the lot (2.56 acres) was created via a subdivision approved in June 2024. The home would be located away from steep slopes and maintain significant tree canopy; a shared driveway would be used. Staff summarized that the Planning Commission recommended approval on July 21, 2026, and staff found no detrimental impact to public health, safety, or welfare, with minimal lot coverage (4% vs. 35% maximum). Staff recommended four stipulations: use of a shared 30-foot easement, approval of curb cut by Floyd County Commissioners, dustproof paving for parking/circulation, coordination with county engineer for drainage, and submission of final site and elevation plans. The board discussed the site plan and cleared area; no public comments were heard. A motion to approve with staff stipulations was made and seconded.
- Docket B 823 – Zershmi Properties, modification of condition for timber harvest special exception: The applicant, Kevin, explained that a previous approval for timber harvest restricted the use of semi-trucks. The original logger failed to perform, and a new logger began hauling lighter loads (not fully loaded semis) without realizing the restriction. The applicant requested removal of the "no semi" condition, stating trucks would be loaded on-site, not on the road, and only every other day or so. Staff noted that using a semi would reduce the number of trips compared to a straight truck. The board discussed potential road damage and safety concerns (blocking emergency vehicles), but the applicant clarified the semi would back into a staging area off the road. The board agreed to approve modification subject to the applicant being responsible for any damage to city infrastructure and staff documenting existing road conditions. A motion to amend stipulation #9 was made and seconded.
Key Outcomes
- Docket B 1726 (Special Exception for Accessory Dwelling Unit): Denied. The motion carried unanimously (5-0) on the basis that the application met none of the three criteria for a special exception: avoidance of traffic congestion, ensuring safety from hazards (lack of permits and inspections), and avoidance of adverse effects on neighboring properties.
- Docket B 1926 (Special Exception for Single-Family Dwelling): Approved with the four stipulations from staff. The motion carried unanimously.
- Docket B 823 (Modification of Timber Harvest Condition): Approved to allow semi-truck use, with the condition that the applicant is responsible for any damage to city roads and that staff documents existing road conditions. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned after the final vote.
Meeting Transcript
Appeals. May we start with a roll call, please. Matt Scottman present. Jason Applegate. Here. Eric Merton. Here. Here. Daniel Rose. Here. Mr. Chairman, we have five members present. It will require a minimum of three affirmative votes to carry any motion. Today's meeting is being streamed and it will be archived in a couple of days at New Albany City Hall.com. Thank you. For those of you who are joining us for the first time, I want to walk through a little bit about how these meetings are conducted. There are two items on the agenda tonight. When an agenda item is called, we'll ask the applicant or their representative to come forward. Tell us a little bit about their project and what they're proposing. And then entertaining any questions that the board may have. At that point, we will welcome all those who would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to a particular DACA to come forward and share their thoughts. After public comment is closed, we'll hear the staff report, and that is the recommendation from the professional staff seated to my right. After that, the chairman will entertain a vote from any member of the board and we'll decide whether or not a uh docket will pass or or not. So with that, we're gonna begin with Docket B 1726. Phonias, Morius requesting a special exception to permitting accessory dwelling in the mixed density residential district at 2401 Fairmont Avenue. Hello. Hi, sorry, I should find this report and uh my name is King Lynx. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for this special exception, Mr. Morius. Um basically it is the request for a special exception as was stated to permit an accessory dwelling unit. The dwelling unit in question was originally um a structure that existed on the property prior to Mr. Moritas actually purchasing the property at that time was occupied by as he would describe homeless persons. Um since he purchased the property, he has basically um redone the whole thing, improved the property, it looks much better now, um, has it rented out to one person, it doesn't it's not um linked in by any of the prior homeless people if you would like to call them squatters or anybody of that nature. Um so basically the reason for the special exception is um you know uh again it's in line with the comprehensive plan, I'll save that. Um the purpose of the comprehensive plan as it has was redone for 2025 is to focus on the you know supply of housing available, all sorts of different types of housing. Um this case, it's like it's a smaller piece of housing that's available for this one person, so I think it meets that criteria. Um it's in uh so it's in harm harmony with the objectives of comprehensive plan. It's in within the MDR district, which is also within you know the purposes of the MDR district are to provide that um the transition from the low density residential use institution to traditional provide that broad range of housing types, so it provides another one of those um options therein. Um and then with regard to the other criteria. Um I should point out that the commission heard this on June 16th and it passed with a vote of seven to one with a favorable recommendation to bring to the BCA here tonight. When the planning commission reviewed, it would have considered you know the application's compliance with the comprehensive plan, as I pointed out, evaluation of the traffic patterns, promotion of public health, safety and general welfare under the section 7.12 C4, and again, planning commission obviously found in favorable that all those items are met to sit forward it in with a favorable recommendation. Um this special exception as requested will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property made vicinity, it's essentially everywhere to be pointed out. It's already cured an injury that was um present upon that community when it had a more dilapidated structure with certain individuals who are not upkeeping it in the house at that or not house, but structure at that time. That's not the case any longer. Um it certainly is not going to substantially diminish and pair property values within the neighborhood for the same reason. It should increase or not have any effect on the surrounding property values. Um it really isn't appropriate here for the existing or intended character of the immediate vicinity. Again, that's kind of a residential area, it's a mixed density residential. Um, so it's in harmony with that. It's not gonna change the essential character of the area for the same reason.
openpublica.com