This meeting of the New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) on September 27, 2024, considered 21 docket items, including unfinished variances, new variance requests, and two appeals of the Director of Safety and Permits. The board took action on numerous items, with decisions ranging from approvals and denials to deferrals. The meeting was adjourned early after two board members had to leave at 1:00 PM.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:20 PM.
Good morning. I would like to call the Monday, September twenty-seventh Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting to order. We will begin with roll call. Candace Forrest. Present. Todd James is present. Tamara Agins. Present. Jose Alvarez is absent. Ramiro Diaz. Present. Alfonso Gonzalez is absent. Jason Richards. Present. At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the August nineteenth meeting? So moved. Second. Thank you. It's been moved by Commissioner James. Second by Commissioner Diaz to adopt the minutes from our last meeting. If the meeting has not already been adjourned, and we'll reconvene at approximately one thirty PM. As a reminder to applicants, action that the board takes today will be released in the form of a disposition notice by October seventh and sent via email and mail to the applicant as well as posted on the one-stop app for other interested parties. Rules and procedures for public hearings, variance requests. The following procedures shall be observed during the hearing. 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 no event shall the cumulative presentation total by applicants or their representatives exceed 10 minutes. Proponents or persons in favor of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker. Opponents or persons in opposition of the proposal will speak next and be allowed two minutes per speaker. The applicant or representative will be allowed a rebuttal. The rebuttal shall be limited to a cumulative maximum of three minutes. For an ex additional information. For an exceptional case, the time limitations may be extended by the presiding officer with the approval of the board. As the board deems necessary, the case may be acted upon at this meeting or deferred for additional information or review. If the case is deferred, it will be acted on at a subsequent meeting as provided by law. All proper parliamentary procedures shall be followed, including recognition of speakers, relevance of argument, and absolute prohibition of applause or demonstration. Standard of review. Item one, docket number BZA 001-24. BZA 001-24 is a request for variances from the provisions of Article 22, Section 22.8, point A, point one, point B, point two, Article 22, Section 22.11, point D.1, and Article 22, Section 22.11, point D.2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance permit the retention of a parking pad located between the front facade and the front lot line for a property located at 5505 Music Street. The board deferred this request at the January 29th, February 19th, March 18th, April 15th, July 15th, and August 19th meetings with the request that the applicant work with an arborist or landscape architect to determine whether the placement of a parking space in the rear yard is viable without harming the trees along the rear lot line. Prior to the July 15th meeting, but after the deadline, the applicant emailed staff or the applicant emailed staff an arborist report. Staff clarified at the meeting that the Arborist report did not specifically address how a parking space in the rear yard might impact the trees. The report noted the following. Cutting roots from either tree will weaken the stability of the trees. Also, it will cause the trees to die back and eventually die. Staff believes that the requested variances failed to meet criteria two, three, four, five, and seven of the standards of variances, in that the literal interpretation of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district. The special circumstances were caused by the applicant. The variance will confer on the applicant special privileges. The variance will alter the essential character of the locality, and the change is exclusively for the convenience and profit of the owner.