New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting – August 17, 2026
New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting – August 17, 2026
The New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) met on August 17, 2026, commencing at 10:00 a.m. and adjourning after approximately five hours. The board considered ten variance requests (one carried over from unfinished business, six new, and three deferred), one decision appeal, and handled procedural matters. The meeting was marked by extensive debate on a court-remanded case (BZA011-24) regarding a multifamily development, which was ultimately withdrawn after the board determined it was improperly on the agenda. The board approved nine of the ten variance requests (one was approved with modifications) and denied the only appeal before it.
Public Comments & Testimony
- BZA011-24 (1100 Sere Street): Zach Smith (applicant representative) urged the board to re-approve the project as in 2024, stating the parking waiver was no longer sought. Opposition speakers: Attorney Keith Doley argued the court required enforcement of the initial vote (denial); Dennis Robinson (1272 Sears St.) cited preservation of neighborhood tranquility; Joan Heiser (4000 Davies St., representing 48 units) opposed the development for quality-of-life and property value impacts; Rashad Myers (1212 Sierra) and Dr. Billy Castlemyers (same address) opposed, citing traffic, parking during school events, and the need for stable family housing. The applicant’s rebuttal characterized the opposition as prejudice against renters and multifamily housing.
- BZA059-26 (7301 Burthe Street): Appellant Susan Johnson (2822 LePage St., representing Town of Carrollton Watch) argued the Department of Safety and Permits improperly issued a permit without a plot plan, enabling conversion to a nine-bedroom dormitory. She alleged safety and permits aided the conversion and noted a discrepancy between plumbing permits and architectural plans. Dan McMarchy (zoning official) responded that the permit did not increase bedrooms/bathrooms and that the appellant’s attacks were ad hominem.
Discussion Items
- BZA011-24 – Court Remanded Variance (1100 Sere St.): The board engaged in a lengthy procedural debate about the Fourth Circuit’s remand, which directed enforcement of the initial February 19, 2024 vote (denial of both requested variances). Staff clarified that no revote was needed; a new disposition notice reflecting denial was required. After deferring the item to later in the agenda, the board returned and, with input from the law department, determined the item was improperly on the agenda and withdrew it. No further action was taken.
- BZA061-26 – Rear Yard Setback (2821 Monroe St.): The applicant (Eli Fisher, HCI Architecture) requested a variance to reconstruct a historic building on its original footprint as part of scattered-site affordable housing. The staff recommended denial, citing lack of hardship. The board approved after the applicant demonstrated that the location was necessary for historic tax credits, ADA accessibility, and the building had been structurally unsafe. A neighbor opposed, arguing the new structure dwarfed his property and was not a genuine renovation.
- BZA063-26 – Generator Placement (439 Pine St.): The applicant (Dr. Mariam Menhem) requested a variance to place an emergency generator in the corner side yard, citing safety, practical constraints, and existing mechanical equipment screening. Staff recommended denial, but the board found the location reasonable and approved.
- BZA065-26 – Front Yard Setback (201 De Armas St.): The applicant (Spectrum Designs) sought a variance to build a metal storage building on an existing concrete foundation near the levee. Staff denied criteria A3, but the board approved, noting the foundation’s proximity to the levee and environmental constraints.
- BZA059-26 – Decision Appeal (7301 Burthe St.): The board reviewed the appellant’s challenge to a structural renovation permit. Staff argued the permit did not increase dwelling units or bathrooms and that a plot plan was not required under the code. The board found no error in the director’s interpretation and denied the appeal.
Key Outcomes
- BZA011-24 (1100 Sere St.): Withdrawn as improperly on the agenda; court-ordered disposition notice of denial to be issued.
- BZA039-26 (1455 N. Roman St.): Approved (5-0) – variance for lot area and lot width, subject to one proviso.
- BZA052-26 (1631 Killdeer St.): Approved (5-0) – driveway width variance modified to 18 ft 8 in (waiver of 6 ft 8 in), subject to one proviso.
- BZA061-26 (2821 Monroe St.): Approved (5-0) – rear yard setback variance, subject to one proviso.
- BZA062-26 (3322-24 Esplanade Ave.): Approved (5-0) – multiple variances for pool, cabana, and parking, subject to two provisos.
- BZA063-26 (439 Pine St.): Approved (5-0) – generator placement variance, subject to one proviso.
- BZA064-26 (3951 Annunciation St.): Approved (5-0) – porch encroachment variance, subject to one proviso.
- BZA065-26 (201 De Armas St.): Approved (5-0) – front yard setback and build-to line variances, subject to one proviso.
- BZA066-26 (2141 State St.): Approved (5-0) – bathroom count variance, subject to one proviso.
- BZA067-26 (4551 Dale St.): Approved (5-0) – off-street parking variance, subject to one proviso (applicant absent; board adopted staff recommendation).
- BZA068-26 (1908 Marigny St.): Approved (5-0) – off-street parking variance for conversion to two-family, subject to one proviso.
- BZA054-26 (906 Philip St.): Deferred 30 days at staff’s request.
- BZA057-26 (10 Audubon Blvd.): Deferred 30 days at staff’s request.
- BZA070-26 (2502 Jefferson Ave.): Deferred 30 days at staff’s request.
- BZA059-26 (7301 Burthe St.) – Appeal: Denied (5-0); director’s decision upheld.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. I would like to call the Monday, August 17th, Board of Starting Adjustments meeting to order. We will begin with roll call. Jason Richards. And Candace Forrest. Yay. Five yes, no nays. The motion carries. Please note that the board will recess at approximately 1 p.m. 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 August 27th 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. Item number two, BZA Docket 03226 has been withdrawn. Item number 15, BZA Docket 06926 was not proper. Item number 17 and 18, BZA dockets 008-24 and 049-26 have been withdrawn. All variance cases with a staff recommendation for deferral as well as variance cases with applicant requests for deferral that was submitted to staff prior to the submittal deadline will be heard following the new business for variances. We would now begin with unfinished business for variances. Will the chair please read the hearing rules 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. Motion to grant both variances to vote to grant both variances, which failed a majority vote. A reconsideration can be moved on by one who voted on the prevailing side of the first vote. The Fourth Circuit vacated the BZA's February 29th, 2024 decision, and remanded this matter to the BZA to issue a decision in accordance with the initial February 19th, 2024 vote. The staff recommendation is as follows. The applicant is proposing to construct a multifamily development on a 1.15-acre lot with 75 dwelling units and 71 off street parking spaces. The applicant is requesting variances from the provisions of Article 15, Section 153A1, Table 15-2, minimum lot area in Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1 to permit insufficient lot area and insufficient off-street parking. Article 15 requires two acres necessitating a waiver of. Based on this report, staff believe that the requested variances of Article 15, Section 153, A1, Table 15-2 for minimum lot area meets all nine criteria of the standards of variance, subject to two provisos. Further, staff believes that the requested variance of Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1, off-street parking requirements fail to meet three of the nine criteria, and that literal interpretation of the ordinance will not deprive the applicant of commonly enjoyed rights by other properties in the district. The variants will confer on the applicant special privilege, and the property regulations will not result in a demonstrable hardship. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variances of Article 15, Section 153A1, Table 15-2 minimum lot area subject to two provisos and denial of the requested variance of Article 22, Section 224A, Table 22-1 for off-street parking requirements. You could give your name and address for the record. Good morning, board. Zach Smith, 1000 South Norman C. Francis. I think the recap was uh done very well there. Um you guys, I think all might remember this project since it was a little over two years ago, and I believe everybody in this room voted for this project due to some judicial review at the Fourth Circuit, yes, due to a Roberts Rules of Order who did the motion when that is the only reason to my knowledge why we are back here.
openpublica.com