OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting - March 18, 2024

City Planning CommissionMonday, March 18, 2024
BodyNew Orleans, Louisiana
SessionCity Planning Commission
DateMonday, March 18, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
2:14

I guess let's go.

3:24

Good morning.

3:26

I would like to call the Monday, March eighteenth, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order.

3:30

We will begin with roll call.

3:31

Candice Forrest is absent.

3:33

Todd James is absent.

3:34

Tamara Agens.

3:37

Present Jose Alvarez.

3:39

Present.

3:45

Jason Richards.

3:47

Present.

3:47

Board, before we begin the meeting, we will need to select an acting chair at this time.

3:53

If you will somebody make a motion.

5:02

So moved.

5:03

Second.

5:04

It's been property moved and seconded.

5:07

The vote the screens are up.

5:09

Let's just vote our screens on that one.

5:22

Motion passes.

5:25

Please note that the board will recess at approximately 1 p.m.

5:28

and reconvene at 1 30 p.m.

5:30

As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by March 28th and sent via email and mail to the applicant, as well as posted on the one-stop app for other interested parties.

5:42

Requests that the board votes to approve must show compliance with any noted provisos before the case is finalized and granted final approval.

5:49

One item on today's agenda has been withdrawn.

5:52

Item number three, BZA 105-23 for the property at 1832 Painter Street.

5:57

We will begin with the unfinished business for variances.

6:00

Will the chair please read the hearing rules for variances?

6:08

I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.

6:09

Will the chair please read the rule?

6:11

All right.

6:24

Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on the proposal.

6:30

The applicant or representative will speak first.

6:34

The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker.

6:41

But in but in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by the applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes.

6:54

Proponents will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker.

7:03

Opponents will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker.

7:13

The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes.

7:50

The request is for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 113A1, Table 11-2A to permit the construction of a single family residence with insufficient front yard setback, insufficient front yard build two line, insufficient interior side yard setback, and insufficient rear yard setback.

8:21

All right, is the uh applicant present?

8:25

Yes, good morning, board Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C Francis on behalf of the owner.

8:30

Uh I think we can make this one a little quick.

8:32

We're gonna actually ask to withdraw this request.

8:35

Uh a couple pieces and parts.

8:37

Uh number one, the board has asked on numerous occasions that our owner and the the drafts people working on behalf of the ownership to provide certain perspectives.

8:46

Those have still not been produced.

8:48

So we know we expect that we would have a similar kind of outcome.

8:51

And we don't want to continue to waste the staff's time with these re-notifications.

8:55

The second part is uh some of the some of the neighbors who we've been communicating with on this were actually able to prove that our ownership team had actually had uh ownership stake in this property since 2002.

9:08

Um it's been in the record both with our research and the staff's research that it wasn't until about 2017-2018, somewhere in a tax sale.

9:16

And between all those reasons, we think it's in the best interest of uh this project to withdraw that since uh we don't believe that the nine criteria could be met, and also the owner was unable, unwilling to actually get what the board has asked on numerous occasions since well into late summer of last year.

9:33

So thank you.

9:34

Thank you.

9:37

Quickly go through the motions.

9:38

Is anyone um here present in favor of the motion?

9:47

Can we go through it?

9:50

Okay, sounds great.

9:51

Is there a motion on the motion uh from the board?

9:56

Do we need to make a motion?

9:57

Nope.

9:58

Okay.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████69%
Procedural███████10%
Pending Litigation█████7%
Public Safety██3%
Affordable Housing2%
Community Engagement2%
Historic Preservation2%
Parking Management2%
Permits2%
Summary of Proceedings

New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting Summary - March 18, 2024

The New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) met on Monday, March 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM in the Council Chambers to hear and decide on various zoning variance requests, appeals of decisions by the Director of Safety and Permits, and extension requests. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM and adjourned in the afternoon after a recess. Key actions included approvals, denials, deferrals, and the withdrawal of several items. The board also addressed a request to defer the election of officers.

Consent Calendar

  • Item 1 (BZA052-23): Withdrawn by the applicant before hearing.
  • Item 3 (BZA105-23): Withdrawn by applicant before hearing.
  • Item 2 (BZA100-23): Deferred for 30 days.
  • Item 5 (BZA109-23): Deferred for 30 days.
  • Item 6 (BZA119-23): Deferred for 30 days at staff's request.
  • Item 7 (BZA001-24): Deferred for 30 days.
  • Item 16 (BZA008-24): Deferred for 60 days.
  • Item 19 (BZA006-22): Granted two-year extension.
  • Item 20 (BZA014-22): Granted two-year extension.
  • Item 21 (Election of Officers): Deferred 30 days.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • BZA100-23 (1834 Second Street): Supporters included a neighbor who welcomed new housing and a community leader advocating for low-income housing use. The owner spoke about her intentions to provide affordable housing.
  • BZA109-23 (2319 George Nick Connor Drive): No public comments.
  • BZA119-23 (2320-22 S. Derbigny Street): No public comments.
  • BZA001-24 (5505 Music Street): No public comments.
  • BZA005-24 (3864 Johnny Jackson Jr. Blvd): Applicant Louis Roby spoke about rebuilding his family home for affordable rent.
  • BZA006-24 (7718-7720 Freret Street): Applicant David Keiffer disputed the staff report and emphasized a minor variance. A neighbor, Keith Harding, spoke in support, noting the neighborhood's parking issues and the commonality of such setups.
  • BZA017-24 (2730-2732 Saint Philip Street): Applicant Jay Rutter requested a waiver to allow two off-street parking spaces and a larger balcony; no opponents spoke.
  • BZA018-24 (1332-1334 N. Derbigny Street/Esplanade): Applicant's representative expressed appreciation for staff recommendation; no opposition.
  • BZA102-23 (1533 Broadway Street): Applicant's attorney argued the city erred in revoking the permit and claimed detrimental reliance. Supporters included Greg Richardson, who described significant investment and reliance on city approvals. Opponents, including neighbors Kenneth Jelpe and Keith Hardy, accused the owner of misrepresentation and circumventing laws; they urged upholding the revocation.
  • BZA015-24 (4522 Palmyra Street): Applicant's representative Mark Herman argued the property did not establish multifamily legal use; supporters echoed this. Opponent Ricardo Tenorio, representing the property owner, argued the multifamily use was established and submitted documentation.
  • BZA008-24 (2900 Perdido Street): Emily Posner, general counsel for Voice of the Experienced, argued the city failed to follow the CZO process for amending conditional uses, and that the community's right to be heard was violated. No opponents present.

Discussion Items

  • BZA100-23 (1834 Second Street): Applicant sought variances for a six-unit multifamily redevelopment; staff recommended denial due to non-compliance with multiple criteria, but deferred to allow applicant to gather more information.
  • BZA109-23 (2319 George Nick Connor Drive): Applicant sought to waive impervious surface and setback requirements; staff recommended denial, but board deferred to allow the owner to remove more concrete and potentially come into compliance.
  • BZA119-23 (2320-22 S. Derbigny Street): Applicant sought setback variance; staff requested deferral, which was granted.
  • BZA001-24 (5505 Music Street): After-the-fact parking pad variance; applicant requested deferral pending arborist report, granted.
  • BZA005-24 (3864 Johnny Jackson Jr. Blvd): Variances for rear yard setback and off-street parking for a two-family residence. Staff recommended approval of setback but denial of parking. Board approved both after discussion, finding the site's unique characteristics justified the parking variance.
  • BZA006-24 (7718-7720 Freret Street): Variance to allow a shed that would remove a compliant parking space. Staff recommended denial; board denied, noting the applicant had alternative compliant options (e.g., relocating shed, building a garage).
  • BZA017-24 (2730-2732 Saint Philip Street): Variances for front yard setback and building line to provide off-street parking and a balcony. Staff recommended denial; board denied after lengthy discussion about illegal parking configurations and the existence of a carport.
  • BZA102-23 (1533 Broadway Street): Appeal of permit revocation. The city argued the permit was issued based on incomplete application and material misrepresentation; the BBSA determined the application was complete only after the IZD. The applicant argued no misrepresentation and detrimental reliance. Board denied the appeal, upholding the city's decision.
  • BZA015-24 (4522 Palmyra Street): Appeal of determination that property qualifies as established multifamily dwelling. City cited documentation (meters, utility bills, leases) to show historic multifamily use. Applicant argued evidence was insufficient. Board upheld the city's determination.

Key Outcomes

  • BZA100-23: Deferred 30 days.
  • BZA109-23: Deferred 30 days.
  • BZA119-23: Deferred 30 days.
  • BZA001-24: Deferred 30 days.
  • BZA005-24: Approved variances (rear yard setback and off-street parking) with one proviso; motion carried with 6 yeas and 0 nays.
  • BZA006-24: Denied variances; motion carried with 6 yeas and 0 nays.
  • BZA017-24: Denied variances; motion carried with 6 yeas and 0 nays.
  • BZA018-24: Approved parking variance with one proviso; carried 6-0.
  • BZA019-24: Approved variances for rear yard setback and permeable open space; carried 6-0.
  • BZA020-24: Approved variances for rear yard setback and permeable open space; carried 6-0.
  • BZA021-24: Approved variance for accessory structure setback; carried 6-0.
  • BZA102-23: Denied appeal, upheld decision of Director of Safety and Permits; carried 6-0.
  • BZA015-24: Denied appeal, upheld decision of Director of Safety and Permits; carried 5-0.
  • BZA016-24: Deferred 30 days.
  • BZA008-24: Deferred 60 days.
  • BZA006-22: Granted two-year extension; carried 4-0.
  • BZA014-22: Granted two-year extension; carried 4-0.
  • Election of Officers: Deferred 30 days; carried 4-0.
  • Meeting adjourned at approximately 4:15 PM.

Meeting Transcript

I guess let's go. Good morning. I would like to call the Monday, March eighteenth, Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order. We will begin with roll call. Candice Forrest is absent. Todd James is absent. Tamara Agens. Present Jose Alvarez. Present. Jason Richards. Present. Board, before we begin the meeting, we will need to select an acting chair at this time. If you will somebody make a motion. So moved. Second. It's been property moved and seconded. The vote the screens are up. Let's just vote our screens on that one. Motion passes. Please note that the board will recess at approximately 1 p.m. and reconvene at 1 30 p.m. As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by March 28th and sent via email and mail to the applicant, as well as posted on the one-stop app for other interested parties. Requests that the board votes to approve must show compliance with any noted provisos before the case is finalized and granted final approval. One item on today's agenda has been withdrawn. Item number three, BZA 105-23 for the property at 1832 Painter Street. We will begin with the unfinished business for variances. Will the chair please read the hearing rules for variances? I didn't hear you, I'm sorry. Will the chair please read the rule? All right. Each speaker shall give their name and address prior to speaking on the proposal. The applicant or representative will speak first. The presentation shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes for each applicant or representative speaker. But in but in no event shall the cumulative presentation total by the applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes. Proponents will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker. Opponents will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker. The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes. The request is for variances from the provisions of Article 11, Section 113A1, Table 11-2A to permit the construction of a single family residence with insufficient front yard setback, insufficient front yard build two line, insufficient interior side yard setback, and insufficient rear yard setback. All right, is the uh applicant present? Yes, good morning, board Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C Francis on behalf of the owner. Uh I think we can make this one a little quick. We're gonna actually ask to withdraw this request. Uh a couple pieces and parts. Uh number one, the board has asked on numerous occasions that our owner and the the drafts people working on behalf of the ownership to provide certain perspectives. Those have still not been produced. So we know we expect that we would have a similar kind of outcome. And we don't want to continue to waste the staff's time with these re-notifications. The second part is uh some of the some of the neighbors who we've been communicating with on this were actually able to prove that our ownership team had actually had uh ownership stake in this property since 2002. Um it's been in the record both with our research and the staff's research that it wasn't until about 2017-2018, somewhere in a tax sale. And between all those reasons, we think it's in the best interest of uh this project to withdraw that since uh we don't believe that the nine criteria could be met, and also the owner was unable, unwilling to actually get what the board has asked on numerous occasions since well into late summer of last year.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com