City Planning Commission Meeting – June 9, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
City Planning Commission Meeting – June 9, 2025
The New Orleans City Planning Commission met on Monday, June 9, 2025, at 10:00 AM in Council Chambers. The meeting covered 18 docket items, including variances and appeals of the Director of Safety and Permits. The board recessed from approximately 1:00 PM to 1:30 PM. Final dispositions will be released by June 19, 2025.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar items were noted.
Public Comments & Testimony
- BZA009-25 (2816-18 Saint Louis Street): Applicant Alex Modinger and property owner Brandon Webb argued that the variance (lot area waiver) was needed to allow separate titling and financing, and that neighboring lots were similarly non-conforming. They presented videos showing non-compliant lots on the same block. The board acknowledged that financial hardship is not a criterion but focused on the three remaining criteria. The applicant's written submission and testimony were accepted.
- BZA023-25 (1474 Magazine Street): Applicant (Zach Smith Consulting & Design) provided a servitude agreement between property owners for pool access, addressing the board’s previous concern about protecting neighboring property.
- BZA036-25 (600 Decatur Street): Representatives Rebecca Greer and Miles Granderson argued that the requested 18 sq. ft. sign (vs. 8 sq. ft. permitted) mirrored the existing Cafe Beignet sign (approx. 18.81 sq. ft.) and that the special code section for Jackson Brewery was unique. They noted no opposition from French Quarter associations.
- BZA042-25 (817 Clayton Avenue): Applicant Alexandria Etheridge explained the carport replacement (open pergola) for an existing aluminum cover removed 5 years ago. Neighbor Patrick Curran supported the project.
- BZA046-25 (719-721 Cherokee Street): Architect Ian Fitzpatrick argued that a 9.78-inch height variance was needed due to HDLC restrictions preventing other design options, and that the University Area Design Overlay District is less than a year old and set to sunset in six months. Owner Wayne Wands stated the addition was for his growing family.
- BZA025-25 (1500-02 Pine Street) – Appeal: Appellant Susan Johnson (Town of Carrollton Watch) argued that two rooms (bonus room and study) should be considered new bedrooms, triggering parking requirements under the University Area Off-Street Parking Overlay. She criticized the developer’s unsigned affidavit and MLS listing discrepancies. Director McNamara defended the department’s interpretation, stating there was no net increase in bedrooms and that the rooms met the bedroom definition.
- BZA041-25 (1940 Saint Claude Avenue) – Appeal: Appellant Corey McGraw and several neighbors (Jeff Abear, Alan Johnson, Pat Galloway, Alex Sabia, Vincent McDonough, Ron Purbolowski) spoke in support of the appeal, arguing that CPC review was required due to substantial improvement and that the developer’s appraisal was misleading. They cited potential traffic, noise, and safety concerns. Opposition was voiced by Brittany Melonson (Stone Pigman) on behalf of the Pizza Hut franchisee, who supported a deferral.
- BZA049-25 (3214 Trafalgar Street) – Appeal: Appellant Elaine Schiller argued that the 1999 permit only authorized a carport renovation, not a dwelling, and that no permits had been applied for to convert the structure. She raised concerns about safety violations and lack of utilities. Owner Cassandra Erb stated she purchased the property as a two-family home and had received a proactive maintenance compliment.
Discussion Items
- BZA009-25: The board discussed the revised resubdivision (31-ft. frontage) and the servitude for stair access. Commissioners noted that the applicant had addressed previous concerns about lot line placement and that the video evidence demonstrated similar non-conforming lots. The motion passed 6-0.
- BZA023-25: The board accepted the servitude agreement and added a second proviso requiring recording. Motion passed 6-0.
- BZA036-25: Commissioners debated whether the sign was analogous to other VCC-approved signs and whether the applicant could have used multiple signs by right. The board found that the request was modest and in line with the building’s character. Motion passed 6-0.
- BZA042-25: The board approved the parking-related variances but denied the carport projection variance due to a 3.5-inch encroachment. The applicant agreed to adjust the design. Motion passed 6-0.
- BZA046-25: The board accepted the applicant’s arguments about HDLC constraints and the temporary nature of the overlay district. Motion passed 6-0.
- BZA033-25 (deferred to end): The applicant argued that similar two-family lots existed on substandard lots and that the denial of a variance would deprive him of rights. The board discussed potential building code triggers (parapet, utilities) and whether a condo regime could be used. After debate, the board deferred the item 30 days to obtain written guidance from Safety and Permits.
- BZA025-25: The board upheld the director’s decision, finding no error in the interpretation of the bedroom definition and noting that the MLS listing was not a legal document. Motion passed 6-0.
- BZA041-25, BZA038-25, BZA039-25, BZA040-25: All deferred 30 days due to insufficient review time or submittal of supplemental materials.
- BZA048-25: Deferred 60 days at the applicant’s request.
- BZA049-25: The board upheld the director’s decision, finding that the property had established two-family use since 1999 (certificate of occupancy, assessor records) and that even if originally illegal, the 10-year prescriptive period under Louisiana law cured the use. Commissioner Richardson noted that the record indicated prior use and that subsequent violations should be addressed through proper channels (Healthy Homes, zoning complaints). Motion passed 6-0.
Key Outcomes
- BZA009-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA023-25: Approved (6-0) with two provisos.
- BZA036-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA037-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA042-25: Partially approved (parking variances) and partially denied (carport projection) (6-0) with three provisos.
- BZA043-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA044-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA045-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA046-25: Approved (6-0) with one proviso.
- BZA025-25: Appeal denied (6-0), director’s decision upheld.
- BZA049-25: Appeal denied (6-0), director’s decision upheld.
- Deferred items: BZA033-25 (30-day deferral), BZA038-25 (30-day), BZA039-25 (30-day), BZA040-25 (30-day), BZA041-25 (30-day), BZA047-25 (30-day), BZA048-25 (60-day).
Meeting Transcript
Ramiro Diaz Present. Alfonso Gonzalez. Present. And Jason Richards. Present. At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the May 5th meeting? So move. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez. Second by Commissioner Alvarez to adopt the minutes from our last meeting. Uh vote your screens. Motion carries. Please note that the board will release or will recess at approximately 1 p.m. if the meeting has not already been adjourned and will reconvene at approximately 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 June 19th and sent via email and mail to the applicant, as well as posted on 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. We will now begin with unfinished business for variances. Will the chair please read hearing rules for variances? Yes. 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 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. As the board deems necessary, the case may be acted upon at this meeting or deferred for additional information or review. BZA009-25 is a request for variances from the provisions of Article 12, Section 12.3.1, Table 12-2 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance to permit the creation of lots with insufficient lot area. Using the new measurements, this lot would render lot seven compliant with the bulk and yard regulations for single family dwellings and remove the need for a waiver. The subdivision could be reconfigured to allow for one lot of record, which would be compliant for a two-family dwelling. Additionally, the op there's a second option that the subdivision could be drawn in a way that provides compliance to a two-family lot, leaving a smaller adjacent lot. In the HUMU zoning district, there are no lot area minimum requirements, lot width minimums or interior side yard setbacks for non-residential uses. The request does not solely reflect a profit-driven interest, but is fundamentally motivated by the need to address and maintain the existing condition in which a principal structure on lot 6A extends across the lot line. By maintaining the status quo where the building continues to encroach over the lot line, the request effectively seeks to accommodate the property owner's convenience without making meaningful changes to resolve the insufficiency. Therefore, staff recommends denial of BZA Docket 00925. However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards or variances, staff recommends one proviso. Hi, if you could give your name and address for the record. Alex Modinger, J.A. Modentry Architect, 1558 Annunciation Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, 7013. You can go ahead with your comments. To address the smaller lot, we originally came with a smaller lot and then changed the uh survey to do this to match comments of the board. Uh we've discussed with the board if we came in with a design for the individual lot as well. That's actually we could move forward with that. But we keep coming down to title issues and the separate titling of the lot. Uh we provided additional commentary for this last meeting uh regarding some of those issues. Um essentially got the same commentary back as a denial, saying we had have not addressed those issues. So I I mean no offense to staff, but as an architect with a business degree who's a real estate developer, focus in finance and management, I would like to address some of the real financial issues here that are not addressed in the staff meeting report without the right that my client has to separate title taxation via the city system for homestead exemption, use of the land thereof as their own home and taxation that way. Federal taxation on a rental property, which would be the duplex, separate title of this causes a convolution and obfuscation of their taxation situation there. So the city is holding him in a position of detriment that is uncommon to his neighbors around him. If you look at the geometry and and we showed the geometry unique to this spot because of the canal, typically 300.
openpublica.com