The Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) met on Monday, April 20, 2026, at approximately 9:00 AM. Present were Chair Candace Forrest, Commissioner Jose Alvarez, and Commissioner Jamie Ramiro Diaz. Commissioners Alfonso Gonzalez and Jason Richards were absent. The meeting recessed from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM and adjourned after completing all agenda items. The board considered multiple variance requests and two appeals.
Staff recommended denial of three variances (projection, sign area, first floor) under Article 24, citing failure to meet criteria 1–9. The applicant presented examples of non‑conforming signs, but staff found none comparable. VCC Deputy Director Renee Burgoyne stated the sign is prohibited by city code (Section 166‑9‑2) and the VCC would deny it. The board voted 6‑0 to uphold staff’s denial, finding that the nine criteria were not met.
Staff reported the applicant paved 90% of the front yard after sewer board repairs. The applicant proposed extending a planter to reduce impervious cover, but the waiver remained at 23%. Urban Conservancy could not assist due to lack of funding. The board deferred the item 30 days (5‑0) to allow the applicant to explore removal options.
Staff recommended approval of variances for pool location in corner side yard, finding all criteria met. The board approved (6‑0) with two provisos (safety fence already installed).
Staff recommended denial for insufficient setback (2.2 ft) and driveway distance. The applicant explained the fixed floor plan cannot be modified without losing significant living space. The board deferred 30 days (5‑0) to explore alternative driveway designs.
Staff recommended denial for insufficient off‑street parking (one space required, none provided). The lot is 38 ft wide; alternative designs may create other zoning issues. The board deferred 30 days (6‑0) for the applicant to work with staff on a compliant plan.
Staff found all criteria met except B1 (special privilege), but the board determined that even at minimum elevation, a variance would still be needed. Approved (6‑0) with one proviso, adopting commentary that the waiver does not confer special privilege.
Staff recommended denial, but the applicant argued hardship due to inability to lease ground‑floor commercial space for five years. Board approved (6‑0) with one proviso, finding all nine criteria satisfied.
Staff recommended denial for rear yard setback and front yard parking. Applicant requested additional 30‑day deferral to gather historic documentation. Deferred (6‑0).
Staff recommended approval of a 1‑ft‑2‑inch waiver for roof‑mounted generator setback. Applicant noted the only alternative location would conflict with off‑street parking overlay. Approved (6‑0) with one proviso.
Staff requested 30‑day deferral to confirm building permit issues. Despite opposition from neighbors citing safety, the board deferred (6‑0) per staff request.
The Department of Safety and Permits denied a sidewalk cafe permit because the bar is a legal non‑conforming use in a residential district (HURD2) and not in an RDO overlay. The applicant argued that outdoor seating has existed for decades and constitutes a non‑conforming use on the public sidewalk. The Department cited Louisiana Civil Code Article 450 and case law that public property cannot accrue zoning rights. After debate, a motion to overturn the decision failed on a split vote (3‑3? the record shows motion failed, no substitute motion, so the department’s decision stands).
The Department determined a billboard is prohibited because the property is within 500 feet of a residential district and in overlay districts. The applicant argued the lot does not front the service road and is separate from adjacent lots. The board upheld the department’s decision (6‑0), finding no error.
Good morning. I would like to call the Monday, April 20th, Board of Sonic Adjustments meeting to order. We will begin with Roll Call, Candace Forrest. Jose Alvarez. Present. Jamie Ramiro Diaz. Present. Alfonso Gonzalez is absent. And Jason Richards is absent. At this time, would the board make a motion to adopt the minutes from the March 16th meeting? So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded, moved by Commissioner James, second by Commissioner Alvarez to adopt the minutes from our last meeting. Vote your screens. Four yes, no nays. The motion carries. Please note that the board will recess approximately 1 p.m. If the board has, I'm sorry, if the meeting has not already been adjourned, and will reconvene at approximately 2 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 26th. I'm sorry, by April 30th, and sent via email and mail to applicants as well as posted on the one stop app for other interested parties. Request that the board votes to approve must show compliance with any noted provisos before the case is finalized and granted final approval. Today's agenda item number three BZA docket 02826 for the property at 2731 Palmer Avenue has been rendered moot. Item number seven BZA Docket 03326 for the property at 37 3617 General Taylor has been withdrawn and item number 11 BZA Docket 03726 for the property at 4 Neuron Place has been rendered moot. We will now begin with unfinished business for variances. Would the chair please read the hearing rule for variances? 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 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. Based on this report, the staff believes that the requested variances of Article 24, Section 24, 13G1A, projecting signs, projection, Article 24, Section 2413, G3CII, Zoning District Group 2, allowable sign area, and Article 24, Section 2413 G 3 C V, Zoning District Groups, Group 2, first floor, fails to meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the standards of variances of Article 4, Section 46F of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, and that there are no special conditions that are peculiar to the land or structure. Literal interpretation of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district. The variants will confer on the applicant special privilege. The variants will alter the essential character of the locality. Strict adherence would not result in a demonstrable hardship. The request is primarily for the convenience or profit of the owner or other interested party. The variants will not be detrimental to the public, will be detrimental to public welfare or interests to other property. The variants will impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties, increase street congestion, increased danger of fire, and endanger public safety. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variances. However, should the board find that the request meets all nine approval standards. Steph recommends two provisos.