Toledo Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – June 15, 2026
Toledo Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – June 15, 2026
The Toledo Administrative Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on June 15, 2026, at 10:00 AM (inferred from transcript) to hear six variance cases and handle one deferral. Due to lack of a quorum (only two members initially present, later joined by a third), the board proceeded to hear cases and vote, with decisions to be finalized administratively. The board largely followed planning commission recommendations provided in printed handouts.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar was presented.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case BZA 826-501 (South Detroit Avenue): Scott, a resident of 1501 Lombard Avenue, spoke after the vote, expressing no objections after learning no access would be created onto Lombard Avenue from the proposed oil change facility. He noted safety concerns due to past traffic issues at the intersection.
- Case BZA 26-16 (1607 Hamilton Street): Steven Ostra spoke in support of Johnny Jones, explaining the need for a garage on a double lot constrained by a mature tree’s root system.
- Case BZA 26-18 (3243 134th Street): Caleb Seeger, the property owner, explained he needed additional garage space for multiple historic vehicles inherited from family members.
Discussion Items
-
Quorum Issue & Procedure: Chair announced that with only two members present (later three, still short of four), they would hear cases and vote, with decisions to be approved administratively—a practice used in the past to avoid delays. Planning commission recommendations were distributed.
-
Case BZA 826-501 – 1502 Lombard Avenue (South Detroit Avenue): John Slater (attorney for Driven Brands) and engineer Ben McDaniel presented. Two area variances were requested for a two-bay oil change facility on a small triangular lot (about 0.5 acre) abutting three streets. The proposed building would be smaller than the existing vacant commercial building, reduce impervious surface, and close one access drive on Glendale Avenue. Planning commission recommended approval. The board voted 3-0 to recommend approval before a neighbor spoke; the decision was later affirmed as administratively approved.
-
Case BZA 26-15 – 4606 Rambo Lane: Richard McGranahan requested a variance to install a six-foot privacy fence in the secondary front yard of a corner lot with a pool. Planning commission recommended disapproval due to recent city council amendments allowing only 3.5-foot fences in front setbacks unless set back from the corner. Board suggested alternative placement, but McGranahan declined. Vote: 3-0 to deny.
-
Case BZA 26-16 – 1607 Hamilton Street: Johnny Jones requested a variance to set a detached garage 40 feet from the front property line (20-foot variance from 60-foot requirement) on a double lot to avoid a mature tree’s root system. Planning commission recommended approval with a condition that a compliant driveway be installed within one year. Board voted 3-0 to approve with that condition.
-
Case BZA 26-17 – 2500 Collingwood Avenue: David Munger (architect, Diocese of Toledo) requested variances for a six-foot wrought iron fence and a sign exceeding height limits for a new pastoral center. The goal was to match existing signage and fence piers on the campus across the street. Planning commission recommended approval. Board voted 3-0 to approve.
-
Case BZA 26-18 – 3243 134th Street: Caleb Seeger requested variances to build a second garage exceeding side size limits and front yard setback, and to have six parking spaces total (max four). Property is a corner lot on a peninsula-like end of the street. Planning commission recommended approval. Board voted 3-0 to approve.
-
Case BZA 26-19 – 406 Northwestwood Drive: A representative from AJS Byron Group requested a variance for a six-foot privacy fence around an exterior seating area in the front yard setback (zoned commercial, adjacent to residences). Planning commission recommended disapproval due to expansion of a deck/patio without addressing prior parking commitments and unresolved outdoor patio permit from transportation. Board voted 3-0 to deny, instructing the applicant to work with planning staff.
-
Deferred Case (BZA 26-20? – address not read): The final case was deferred due to lack of information (sign base not compliant with zoning code). Applicant had been notified by email three weeks prior. The board stated the variance cannot be heard until a compliant base is provided.
Key Outcomes
- Case 826-501 (South Detroit Avenue): Approved (3-0), administratively upheld.
- Case 26-15 (Rambo Lane): Denied (3-0).
- Case 26-16 (Hamilton Street): Approved (3-0) with condition to install compliant driveway within one year.
- Case 26-17 (Collingwood Avenue): Approved (3-0).
- Case 26-18 (134th Street): Approved (3-0).
- Case 26-19 (Northwestwood Drive): Denied (3-0).
- Deferred Case: Continued until applicant provides a compliant sign base.
Meeting Transcript
So tech technically there needs to be four of us to complete the quorum. And as it sits now, there are two of us. And there is another member, he should be here any minute. That will give us three, although that's not a quorum. We can still hear the cases. The goal here is to not delay this and make everyone come back. Um so we can hear it. And the three of us can kind of give our recommendation. And then uh the admin, but I think that uh non-administration would then approve them administratively. So we'll still hear the cases, although we don't have a quorum button in order for a little bit and everything to kind of do that. I feel folks don't have to come back. So I'm trying to prevent that and uh, I think it's a good one. Shortly he just text me and said, So, I appreciate it. And then additionally, so um, there are printouts for that planning commission kind of shows the recommendation and um typically the board really follows what um the recommendation from planning commission, although you know, we don't always do that, but um we we really rely on their recommendation. Um I think if if you s if you see that the recommendation recommending an approval, I think, you know, really come up, just kind of state your case, kind of what's going on. But I think it should be fairly uh well for you. If if uh if they are recommended recommending a disapproval, um really I would get up and kind of speak towards maybe why they are recommending a disapproval and why you can disagree with that. So that's kind of a good how things will go. So and then before you speak, please sign in and then we'll read the right hand, and then she'll swipe you in. Once you use this once Rob's wrapped here, we'll go... Alright, so as stated before, we don't have a quorum, but we will give our we will vote and then if they will kind of approve or disprove based on this administrative one. It's been done in the past, from what I understand. So, anyway, we'll get started. I would like to call to order the hearing of the administrative board of zoning appeals at this time, I i i uh uh uh uh uh I know I didn't say this for, but if you intended to speak and provide testimony, please sign the sheet on the podium so we have the correct spelling of your name and address additionally prior to providing any testimony. Raise your right hand this morning, we are also recording the hearing here, so please speak directing to our Mr. Secretary. I guess we can call the overall here, Robert Pasker here. Nathan Namkey. Here, uh so we don't we don't have a quorum, but I guess for the record, I guess people I guess the record now has who is here. Um would you please read the first case? BZ 826-501 South Detroit Avenue, also known as 1502 Lombard Avenue. The applicant request variants on approach in order to install a bailout lane. Is anybody in attendance want to speak on this case? Yes, good morning. My name is John Slater, and I have with me Ben McDaniel. We're both going to speak, so we'll both be sworn in. Are you an attorney? I am, yes. You will you attorneys on you this morning? Okay. If he claims to speak, then he does. Can you please say your name now? Ben McDaniel, eleven thirty-six South Park Traveling Green, Kentucky. I do. So we have we have the packet, but it'd be good just kind of run through. Um it looks like planning commissions recommended and um approval for the variance, but it'd be good just to kind of give a little get a little more background for the sure. I'll just give you a quick executive summary. And there's actually two variances being requested that are part of this. Um, and again, my name is John Slater. I'm an attorney with the Tucker Ellis Law Firm.
openpublica.com