Toledo Administrative Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - September 21, 2026

The Toledo Administrative Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held a public hearing on Monday, September 21, 2026, at 10:00 AM in City Council Chambers. The board considered four variance cases, including storage of recreational vehicles, signage height, fence height, and driveway/accessory structure compliance. Planning Commission staff recommended disapproval on all cases, but the board did not always follow that recommendation.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Case 1 (Boat/Trailer Storage): Kathleen Bradley, the applicant, testified that her property is 150 years old and has been in her family for 70 years. She argued that the area where she stores her boat and trailer is historically her backyard, though it faces a street due to dual frontage. She stated that three of four neighbors in the cul-de-sac consider it a backyard and that she never knew it was a front yard until receiving a violation letter. She offered to plant more arborvities to block views.
  • Charles Dunn (neighbor, 5231 Ottawa River Road) opposed the variance, stating that the boat and trailer are an eyesore and violate city code (1107.802 C) because they are not positioned behind the main residence. He argued that the hardship was self-created and that the boat could be moved to a compliant area on the property.
  • Sharon Dunn (neighbor) also opposed, calling the boat and trailer a detriment to the neighborhood and embarrassing for guests.
  • Amanda Liparado (neighbor, 5220 Ottawa River Road) testified that the boat and trailer have been there for five years without moving, creating an eyesore from her front door and office window.
  • Michelle Sprat (neighbor, 2332 Shoreland Avenue) supported the applicant, stating that moving the boat to the front yard would block the river view for others and that the applicant's property is well kept.
• Case 2 (Sign Variance): Brian Heil, owner/developer of Here on Yards (27 North Huron Street), testified that the sign is on a pergola, not a building, and that the pergola is 10 feet tall surrounded by 40-foot buildings. He argued that the spirit of the height restriction applies to buildings, not pergolas, and that he had received multiple approvals from other city departments. He noted confusion between Planning Commission's initial disapproval recommendation and an email received that morning recommending approval.
• Case 3 (Fence Variance): Kelly Brown (5151 Angola Road) explained that the 8-foot fence is needed for visual screening, security, and to prevent inoperable vehicles from being parked on their property by a neighboring used car lot. She expressed openness to a 6-foot fence and concern about safety on the curved road.
• Case 4 (Driveway and Accessory Structures): Michelle Sprat (2332 Shoreland Avenue) described a five-year history of confusion with city permits, including receiving approvals then later being cited for non-compliance. She stated that her driveway was not enlarged, only resurfaced from stone to concrete per city instructions, and that she had certificates of occupancy for a gazebo and detached garage. She felt harassed by the city.

Discussion Items

• Case 1: Variance for Boat/Trailer Storage (Failure to Provide Case Number, Located on Ottawa River Road) The applicant requested a variance to store a boat and trailer in what she considered her backyard but which is legally a front yard due to dual frontage. Planning Commission staff (Esther) clarified that the code prohibits storage of recreational vehicles in front yards and that the applicant has sufficient room behind her garage to store both items, so no true hardship exists. After hearing from all parties, a board member stated she would not allow the variance because the boat can go in the back. The variance was denied.

• Case 2: Variance for Sign Height (BZA26-00034, 27 North Huron Street) The applicant requested a variance to allow a sign on a pergola to extend above the height of the structure (per Toledo Municipal Code 1113.0304B). Planning Commission staff explained that pergola is considered a building under zoning definitions, so a sign permit is required and the variance is needed. The applicant argued that the pergola is not a building and that lowering the sign would change the approved aesthetic. The board voted to approve the variance.

• Case 3: Variance for Fence Height (BZA26-00038, 5151 Angola Road) The applicant requested an 8-foot fence in the front yard of a double frontage lot in an IL zone. Planning Commission staff noted that a 3.5-foot fence is allowed without a variance. The board discussed safety concerns on the curved road, potential for fence damage, and the possibility of a compromise with a 6-foot fence further from the street. A motion to defer the case to allow the applicant to work with Planning Commission on an alternative plan was made and seconded.

• Case 4: Variance for Driveway Width and Additional Accessory Structures (BZA26-00039, 2332 Shoreland Avenue) The applicant sought variances for a driveway exceeding maximum width and for additional accessory structures (sheds). Planning Commission staff stated the driveway was not installed per approved plans (missing a required 3-foot separation) and that the curb was not cut for the new portion. The board expressed confusion due to conflicting records, permits, and certifications. Council Member Gloria Shepherd offered to personally investigate the matter. A motion to defer the case was made and seconded.

Key Outcomes

• Case 1: The board voted to deny the variance for boat/trailer storage. (Vote: majority denied; one member abstained? The transcript indicates "Denied" and "Variance has not been approved." No explicit tally was recorded.)
• Case 2: The board voted to approve the sign height variance. (Motion approved with all members voting yes: Chris, Denise Williams, Devon Overton, Robert Pasker, Gloria Shepherd.)
• Case 3: The fence variance case was deferred to allow the applicant to work with Planning Commission on a revised plan (e.g., 6-foot fence or graduated heights).
• Case 4: The driveway and accessory structure variance case was deferred, with Council Member Shepherd undertaking an internal review of the city's permitting history.
• The board also approved the minutes from the previous August meeting.