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by extensive debate on a court-remanded case (BZA011-24) regarding a multifamily development, which was ultimately withdrawn after the board determined it was improperly on the agenda.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.
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 Item number two, BZA Docket 03226 has been withdrawn.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 Item number 17 and 18, BZA dockets 008-24 and 049-26 have been withdrawn.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.