Board of Zoning Adjustment - Special Meeting

Is everyone over here?

I didn't hear the response. I don't get it. Oh, we should have . Straight water. It's funny. I'm ready. Yeah, sure. Certainly, what do we think about. Sure. Yes.

Do we have any appeals today? What we no longer didn't feel during these. We do appeals quarterly.

There is a time requirements and file to schedule and the reality of it is not something that just started.

It's something with code enforcement and feel a process for some time. I have a meeting with. Something special.

Yeah, I would.

I would prefer not to do special needs. I don't want to do it either. Very challenging. I respect that. That's going peels burns. This is unnecessary. So, and let's look at doing it quarterly and look to see if there's any challenges that's going quarterly. See, we're there. Yeah, I mean, even if it was stuff, we did them. You know, another day, a scheduled day, like, and if nobody has it that way, it's a head. It's not a struggle for you to schedule because it's going to be on these prescribed days. Um, but he could know it in the beginning and say, if you've got an appeal and you're in January, we'll do the next appeal date is the mark whatever. And then he'll comment on that day. Yeah. So, so. Okay, I mean, I wouldn't say significantly, but the context of the case, so, you know, from agency, it could be something that if I have the right questions, it can take 10 minutes. Or if we let people go through their motions, they could take out, you know what I mean? We don't have any, but I've been thinking about this, but you guys, I appreciate that.

So, of course, just to tell the specialist. Talk about skills that are not changing. So, I covered the sector as well. Yeah, I like Maggie. Did you have our person? Yeah, that's okay.

You send me an email.

No, we're good. So that's it.

Are you in position? Sir, I don't know what came up on my Facebook, but you got a promotion request. Did you get it? No, that person has support.

So, very exciting. I was out of mind and Steve. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're late. So, uh, so you have a company on a different way. So, yeah, I mean, uh, given 7, 3, congratulations. But this will be for support. It took him on her after that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Here. I want to get to it again.

So, I don't know. So, I didn't know. I was apparently.

Yeah, I guess what we.

I'll start in just a few minutes.

Okay.

Sit over there.

Thank you.

good evening and welcome to the special meeting of the board of zoning adjustment for july 8 2026. tonight we will hear cases for zoning applications um what we will do if you plan to be a test of excuse me a witness this evening we will swear you all in at one time as a matter of fact now if you do plan to provide testimony please stand and raise your right hand Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide this evening is the best and truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say yes. Thank you. If you are presenting a case, this uh the way this will work you'll come up you'll sign in on one of the sign-in sheets the city staff will present their portion of your case you will have three minutes after that to add to your case if you feel it's necessary share any relevant information then we will request if there are any people that would like to speak for or against your proposal they'll have the opportunity to come up they'll also have three minutes i believe And if they do provide any questions that you need to answer or anything that you'd like to address, you'll have the opportunity to come back and present that. That being said, again, when we call your case, please step up to the table, sign your name, and then we will get started from the city's standpoint. Are there any preliminary matters for consideration?

Yeah. We have a board order extension request for BZA 25-046897 Berkeley Road.

Yes. Please come up. Would you please provide your name for the record and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Yes. My name is Dave Perry. I have been sworn.

Okay, and what is your request?

Mr. Heigl is to be here. There may have been some confusion with the other meeting room, but there was a variance approved June 24, 2025 for 897 Berkeley to construct a two-unit dwelling on a vacant lot. And Mr. Heigl is requesting an extension of the board order for six months. He's been building some other single and twins in the area, and he's just not quite ready to submit the building permit for this.

okay and this is not a case that we're hearing tonight this is just an extension so nobody would okay so nobody needed to be notified is there a motion to extend the board order bza2546897 for a period of six months so moved it's been moved is there a second second please call the roll

Ms. Agelhoff? Yes. Mr. Malka? Yes. Acting Chair Jones?

Yes. Extension granted. I'll also, before everybody comes up or comes up for your case, I'll provide information. You have three board members here today. You have to have every board member in approval or acceptance of your proposal. In the event that you want to delay your case hearing and come back for the next available date to be heard, We will give you the option to do that. It would be ideal if you could decide now. We can just move your case to another meeting. But again, I want to be completely transparent. If you do present your case today and it is heard, all three board members have to approve that. If it's not, it's denied. You'd have to have a situation of, to be reconsidered, you'd have to have a significant change to your application. Otherwise, it's a denied case. Does that make sense? Okay. That being said, is there anybody that would like to put their hearing off to another date? Sounds good. BZA 26-020 for 2693 Johnstown Road. Again, please come in, sign in, and we'll hear from the staff first. Thank you.

2693 Johnstown Road is located on the east side of Johnstown Road, approximately 550 feet north of East 17th Avenue. It's part of the East Columbus Civic Association and existing zoning is M2 Manufacturing District. The 3.85 acre site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding uses include an off-ramp to the north and west, industrial offices and semi-trailer washing services to the east, and industrial offices and warehouses to the south. The applicant proposes to construct a semi-trailer parking and storage lot on the site. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the landscape buffer along Johnstown Road from 50 feet to 1.7 feet and reduce the storage setback from 200 feet to 1.7 feet along Johnstown Road and 5 feet from other lot boundaries. This application had been previously tabled at the May 2026 BZA hearing and the committed site plan has been updated since tabling. Division of Planning is generally supportive of the requested variances and requests additional landscaping and screening of parking is provided along Johnstown Road. Columbus Growth Strategy Industrial Design Guidelines state that chain link fencing is supportable in industrial areas when visible from a public right of way or adjacent residential area. Columbus Growth Strategy recommends that chain links should include privacy slats or fence fabric to reduce overall visibility into the site. Staff requests the six-foot-high chain link fence proposed at the site include privacy slats or fence fabric to screen the parking along Johnstown Road and for consistency with CGS design guidelines. CGS also recommends that these techniques should be combined with plantings on the outside of the fence that may include trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, et cetera, to provide additional naturalized screening. Staff also requests traditional landscaping such as trees, shrubs, and ornamental grasses is provided in combination with the chain link fence to provide naturalized screening as recommended by CGS. Therefore, planning is generally supportive of the requests the proposed chain link fence include privacy slots or fence fabric and additional landscaping for consistency with CGS industrial design guidelines. Those recommendations have been incorporated into the landscape site plan that we'll be committed to. Planning staff further note that the land use recommendation was recently updated to industrial and warehouse As a result of the passage of the Columbus growth strategy, that legislation took effect on Wednesday, February 25th, 2026. Staff note corresponding zoning as part of zone and economic housing, sorry, economic and housing opportunity is still under consideration. Division of Traffic Management has stated that a right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from the center line of Johnstown Road will be required per Columbus City Code 4309.17. Finally, the East Columbus Civic Association has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting 7-0 in favor. City Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variances would result in a site that is aligned with the surrounding development pattern. The variances to setbacks are also mitigated by the fact that the surrounding area is developed with warehouse-based and industrial offices within the landing path of John Glenn International Airport. AND THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF JOHNSTOWN ROAD HOSTING U.S. HIGHWAY 62 AND SEVERAL ON OFF RAMPS. WE DO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, HOWEVER, THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL COMMIT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ILLUSTRATING THE SAME SITE PLAN AND TRAFFIC HAS ALSO NOTED THAT ANY PROPOSED LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE. The Department of Public Service will have no responsibility for the maintenance of such landscaping, and such landscaping may be removed in the future at the sole discretion of the Department of Public Service. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Have you been sworn today? Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. Thank you so much. And have you signed in?

Yes.

Both of you? Okay, great. Go ahead.

Yes, we have done all the improvement we were asked to do last sitting. Oh, my name is Victor Ndragova. So we have incorporated all... We were asked to incorporate in the lounge at the last hearing.

When you were here last, there was a neighbor that had concerns. Have you spoken with her and alleviated those concerns? Yes. Okay. How did you do that? What did you change?

We added a defense on that line and the hedge line on that line, yes.

And the lighting?

Yeah, the lighting. The lighting are all pointed down and out from her property.

Okay. And the last time, the real discrepancy that I noticed was you had paved parking but asked for gravel. And now in those same spaces, I just see lines. What is that?

So point of clarification, one of the variances that was previously requested was a setback for parking. That variance has been dropped because the interpretation here is that this is going to be storage rather than parking. Storage is allowed to use gravel as a surface for trailer storage. It is also allowed in the M2 district as a primary use, whereas parking as the sole use would not be allowed in the M2.

And how do we distinguish parking versus storage?

It would be mainly up to zoning clearance for that determination. They took a look at the site plan and the description of the use and determined that this could count as storage.

The general difference is that parking needs to be paved and striped.

Okay, so we're calling it something different for that purpose, but it's effectively going to be parking. I mean, that's what I think your whole premise is, is to provide parking for semi-tractor trailers. Is that correct?

Storage. Because they want to store the trailer parts.

So they won't be connected to a truck?

No.

Okay. Is that a distinction that you guys call out or...? I mean, because effectively, if it's just a trailer by itself as storage, I could see that. But a trailer attached to a truck or a vehicle. I'm not sure that whether or not it's attached to a truck makes the difference.

It's the nature of the use, whether or not the surface is improved, whether or not there are striped parking spaces. That would be my understanding.

I just want them to be successful in what they want to do. And I know what I saw. And I know what I believe you're trying to do. And I just want to make sure that you get it right. But you're good with that? That there's no parking, but you're just leaving...

yes that's why we all those uh shaded areas are parking spaces sorry our storage storage spaces i'm sorry storage spaces okay uh is there anything else that you that you'd like to add to the application

And are you willing to accept the conditions as they were presented? Correct. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal? Please step forward. If you could make space for this person. We just need one seat.

As they are approaching, we have also passed around a packet of letters and testimony from surrounding residents.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll probably keep a copy for Tony. Tony, will you need one?

I was wondering if these were entered into the record, I'd email them.

No. And cost. Okay.

I do have and they're more or less the same that I saw yesterday. Can I approach to give them time? So, all of them are consistent in this. So, I guess you need 3, right?

Are you those okay? Yes.

You know, did I give you this? Yeah, you only give me that 1.

Thank you.

This is different than this.

Maybe it was here.

And so these are just the same thing. Yes.

The only 1 new things to them.

These are.

Okay. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Tim Kaskuski, Fasten Design. Yes, I've been sworn in.

Okay. Bill Mattis, attorney for Tim's Company. No, I have not been sworn.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

So thank you for the staff report and the consideration what I'm trying to what I'm doing today is submitting six exhibits for your review To more or less show that our opposition to this case and why it should not warrant a variance Most significantly it's a significant variance. It's a reduction from the codes that the zoning code requires protections to adjacent property owners to more or less restrict so that their properties aren't devalued or diminished, right? And in this case, we're taking a 200-foot setback for outdoor storage of trailers and reducing it to 1.7, which effectively is a 97% reduction in what the zoning code requests.

So that I can understand, you said from adjacent property owners,

that's from the right away yeah and then from the adjacent property owners it's 80 reduction 25 to 5. also we have a residence adjacent to it who may or may not speak today that that in columbus code although that's not a columbus property would require a hundred foot setback so what i've submitted is a site plan showing that this use uh without an area variance would effectively not be allowed to store outdoor trailers although granted by right within the zoning are you referring to this Correct so the white area in that exhibit is the only area where they could store trailers roughly for allowing and approving this variance allows the increase of that use to 60 or so trailers. That's a significant deviation. Further, I'd like to, I submitted to this board petitions from neighbors who were not made aware. Although Columbus properly noticed adjacent property owners, the Neighborhood Commission did not notify us. We were not able to directly voice our concern within this adjacent area. So we have more, we have 20... We have 20 people that have signed off on that and a number of testimonies showing how the character of this neighborhood is changing. What was more important for the neighborhood plan that was referenced in staff is that it's identifying light industrial use, which is roughly encouraging the fabric around there for uses that aren't necessarily outdoor storage of tractor trailers and are more consistent with the growth pattern and investment of the local property owners, including a trade school, And a showroom, and so what we're seeing is this area, although maybe it was more heavily industrialized and maybe from an aerial looks like that is undergoing significant investment and is continuing to provide much much needed jobs and education immediately adjacent to this. And our concern is that, um. The trailer and the use will intensify traffic and safety concerns that already exist. I've also exhibited ODOT has recognized the danger of the intersection that was noted 550 feet away from here with both Johnstown Road and East 17th receiving traffic patterns from tractor trailers. There are a number of incidents. I think there are 19 accidents in the three-year period. There are nine injury accidents. They have recommended a roundabout, and so what I'm curious to is, was that considered in addition to the existing traffic issues of the school having 200 daily trips? Was a traffic study done? All these things seem to run counter to the safety of that area if this use is approved, which otherwise would not be approved. it without this variance as the zoning code affords these protections are to our adjacent property owners and then we've also submitted an appraisal showing the negative impacts of a tractor trailer storage to the adjacent property owners so all in all we don't think it's consistent with the neighborhood plan the future zoning um or really the intent of the code, these variances and screening setbacks are in place to protect these owners. And what I'll also add is I've done a test fit as an architect and we can fit roughly a 50,000 square foot building that provides jobs that's similar in nature to the adjacent users that surface parks itself and meets all zoning requirements without a variance. So I don't believe this case has the right for variance given its significance. And that's really the case I'm trying to make today.

Okay, thank you so much. And what's the name of your business?

Fasten Design.

Where are you located on this map?

Oh, I'm representing 3128 East 17th Avenue, which is IEC of Central Ohio.

Can you show me that staff on the screen so I can see it?

Well, they are actually 3128 East 17th, which shares the East property line. And they also own 3120 East 17th, which is the quality pools as the tenant, which is the property immediately west of that. So the dominating nature of the property here borders my client.

Thank you.

Okay. So not the, not this one, both, both. Okay.

And the IEC is a trade school training over 800 apprentices for electrical contracting, and they're expanding into HVAC. So this is a heavily trafficked, heavily invested area that has received over $6 million of investment. And this sort of runs counter to the code.

So how do you feel your clients are going to be damaged?

Well, 1st, and foremost, I think there's a safety concern here with tractor trailer traffic, crossing student traffic at a busy intersection within. Once they do the roundabout, I don't know how far you have to do and if the traffic study has been done to document how far you have to go before you're allowed to have a trailer turn, but it's going to increase congestion. There is an adjacent tractor trailer storage, whether permitted or not lot and there have been and that might be a repair facility, but. That there have been significant optics in crime since their presence. In the area, the noise, just the overall diesel and air quality. It's just, you're supposed to have a safe learning environment for that. You see, particularly. um where where students feel safe they can come learn in quiet and if you're gonna have trucks coming in and out idling who knows even if they're dropping them off um nobody watching the site maybe break-ins yeah i want to stay focused on the variances that are being requested here right not speculation on other things so damage you feel your client is damaged and you're you're zoned commercial or what is your zoning where you are i think we are um i don't know that we're m2 there um we are a business

Okay, sure.

And the appraisal should show that there will be negative value incurred.

Well, that's what I'm trying to get at. How are you going to be damaged by something that's, you're in an allowable, in a space where this is allowable effectively. So how are you specifically going to be harmed?

I guess my argument is not necessarily that whether it's allowable by right. The area variance is allowing a significant increase to the use that would otherwise not exist. So there would only be four here instead of 40. That's a way different traffic pattern. That's a way different use and operating thing that we believe negatively impacts our clients and surrounding area and the investment that the other neighbors are making.

okay thank you and so staff help me understand reduced storage setback from 200 to 1.7 along johnstown road and five foot from other boundaries other lot boundaries what is the normal code for other lot boundaries let's see

So yeah, the reduced soar setback, the 200 feet is the required setback. The reduction is from 200 feet to 1.7 feet along Johnstown Road and from 200 feet to 5 feet along the other lot boundaries. It's 200 feet regardless.

Regardless, okay. And is it from lot boundaries of residential properties or does it speak specifically to that or no? A lot of it refers to residential properties.

this one is let's see 33 67.29 b open storage of materials the open storage of materials other than junk waste products salvage weeds may be prevented in the m2 manufacturing district when located at least 100 feet from any residential or apartment residential district and not in advance of the building setback line as here and established major thoroughfare 80 foot right of way or greater setback line, 200 feet from center line. So it's 200 feet from the center line of a major thoroughfare, which would be the 80 foot right of way line.

And forgive me, I keep zoning in on, no pun intended, the 200 feet from other lot lines. I see. Yeah.

I see what you're saying. So yeah, the 200 foot would be for the major thoroughfare, which would be Johnstown Road in this in this situation. Right. And then the other condition is the 100 feet from any residential or apartment residential district, which again, the nearest residential or apartment residential district that we have is right next door. No, no, that is limited industrial.

Yeah, if you'll recall, the property in the county that is used for a residence is actually zoned for life.

Got it. Thank you. So this diameter here, this 400-foot diameter, that's the nearest point where there is an R1 zoned parcel there. That's the nearest residentially zoned parcel in this area.

And maybe I just need clarity around this. That's what I'm accustomed to. this 200 feet from a lot line or other lot boundaries, what is that referring to?

Because it's a, it's a setback. It's not. So what you're thinking of is like a buffer from residential. This is a setback.

Okay. Got it.

Um, there were no, uh, zoning clearance had determined that there was again, since that 400 foot, that, that is the buffer that you would be required.

Um, that's for open storage or what is that for?

I believe it would be for this specific kind of storage because that's what they were looking at for determining whether they meet that 400-foot boundary. And that was why this item here was included because the storage that is nearest to that residential zone parcel is just at the point where they wouldn't need a variance. If it was any closer to that residential zone parcel, they would need a variance to the buffer.

And I think that that was, when I heard you say it, it was for open storage.

So again, that is for one of the variances that they are requesting. That is a setback variance. But again, there are no buffer. There are no residential buffer variances included in this.

Right, but I'm just getting to, and maybe I'm just asking the same question the wrong way. If... So 100 feet from a lot line for all storage or... That's what I'm having trouble reconciling. Maybe my colleagues can help me with this. If, I mean, obviously you could have storage. If it's contained, you have storage at lot lines. We have that all the time, all over the city. So what's the distinction here?

I can offer you some assistance. Just give me one second, please.

So again, the language we're looking at here in the staff report would be the third paragraph, third bullet point, the second variance being requested, which is the storage one. As it reads, and this is direct from code, open storage of materials, the open storage of materials other than junk waste products, salvage or wrecked automobiles. So, you know, storage of tractor trailers would fall under that.

But that's not open storage. That's my point. A storage container is a container.

Right, but the container is what is being stored. The container itself is my understanding.

If I think I understand correctly, it's because the items are stored outside versus in an enclosed structure. Does that answer your question?

Yes, but I feel like we've talked about the case on airport drive, storage containers on a lot, 600 feet from a right of way. Storage containers were outside, but they weren't open. The storage was inside. They were just the vessel. I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole too far, but we'll talk about it. Any other questions for this gentleman?

No.

Thank you so much.

I did. If I could, there are a couple of legal issues with the zoning variance. The first variance, Bill Mattis, law firm of Dinsmore and Scholl. The first zoning variance is under 3367.15C and asked to go from 50 feet to 1.7. The second variance is misstated. It says 3367.15B. 15B is not applicable. It says 29B, 3316. No, that's the third one, sir. I'm on the second one.

There are two variances being requested.

There's three variances being requested.

There are two variances being requested.

You must have outdated information.

I'm showing three.

Well, I mean, we're looking at it. We're here in the zoning meeting right now. The next variance is 3367.29B. Okay, so they're from 200 to 1.7.

If I might interject, were there three variances and was the storage variance the one that... Yeah, so as part of my report, like I said, there was one variance that was dropped. That was the variance for parking setback. And since this is no longer being considered parking, but storage, that variance was no longer needed. So it was dropped. And when a variance is dropped, there is no need to return to the Area Commission because, again, you are bringing it closer into compliance rather than... more outside of compliance. That might be where the confusion is coming from. This could be an agenda from the previous hearing.

Okay. Thanks. So did you have something else to add or clarification to offer?

Um, yeah, I just looking at the 3307.09 a and the seven questions that you must answer. Um, property can be used with the evidence submitted for a beneficial use other than this. The variance from 200 to 1.5 feet is substantial. It is suffering, the adjoining properties would suffer. The property owner purchased this property knowing that these zoning codes were in effect and the restrictions were there. They can use this property for something other than asking for the variance. The spirit and intent behind the zoning code of 200 feet front and 50 feet on the side is not going to be observed if you grant the variance, and it would take away the spirit and intent of the zoning code and the setback regulations. Finally, we did not see a traffic study. I don't know if one was submitted 45 days before the hearing.

Is a traffic study required for this?

I would think this wouldn't meet the threshold, right?

Even with the new roundabout coming in?

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Okay. Please come forward two at a time. Thank you. It's not. No, no.

Yeah.

Yes. one person sign in you're two different people two different we're from the same property or i mean with the same okay that's fine come on in we're sworn okay great thank you so one person sign in and one person speak please you have three minutes

My name is Andrew Holt. I'm one of the partners of the property at 3075 East 17th Avenue. We are the property directly across the street from what would be the proposed entryway to that lot.

Where he's highlighting it now?

Yeah, right there. So just a little description of our property. We have a... There's three owners and two of the owners, one of the ones not here today. My dad here has a fabrication business on a smaller part of the building. We have CleanServe, which is a storefront. We have many customers coming in, driving up in cars and trucks. active storefront windows walk in we're very similar to many of the properties along that street plumbing supply houses there's jack's wax which is a retail place you can buy car wax similar to iac where you have a lot of people driving up our main concern with this variance is that is going to significantly increase of course the truck traffic in that area it's not real busy with that kind of traffic right now that driveway that would be in that picture there it's going to be right across the street from our entryway looking at similar instances where you have again with the gentleman was talking earlier about the trucking that's like two doors down it completely destroys the area right in that that deal where the guys are turning their trucks to come in it's going to end up this is speculation, but it's going to end up destroying that whole corner of which is the entryway for our business. In addition to a lot of With trucks, a lot of these guys will end up parking there in the morning, waiting to get into lots, and it just ends up being a total mess. And again, our business, we deal with outside people coming in in a storefront where we are extremely light duty manufacturing. My dad's business is the same way, light duty manufacturing, but we have customer entryway storefront. So it matters the front appearance of our business. similar to IEC and Jack Swacks and some of these other businesses in our neighborhood. So in summary, we definitely would recommend rejecting this variance. Okay.

Thank you. Is it just me speak or would he be able to speak?

You can both speak.

Do you want to say anything to that?

Yes. I've been there in that particular location almost over 30 years and seen a lot. And my experience, just because of the customer base that I have, that there's very difficult to turn a semi into that without probably tearing the road up on our side of building. I deal with those kind of people, I mean, those businesses. And plus, my concern is that it's not really going to be a storage facility. It's going to be a place where a trailer is dropped off of the truck and unhooked and then picked back up again. So there's a tremendous amount of truck traffic all the time. Otherwise, it would be worthless to anybody. So I just don't think it fits our area. The setback, they want to do that, but they want us to make a bunch of concessions. And I believe that our property will suffer. If nothing else, the road in front of it will be tore up all the time. It's bad enough with heavy duty trucks. So I'm a big small business advocate. I've been in small business by myself for 40 years. So I'm not against them being in business. But I think the business they want to operate in our areas doesn't fit us at all.

Thank you so much. Can you provide your name?

My name is John Holt.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holt. Brandon, can you speak to that? Are there any things that you see based on that driveway that make it problematic for entry or?

I mean, based on our review of the plan, you only have one location, you could put the driveway, we weren't accepting of the driveway being from Johnstown Road.

So there's only there, they have limited site frontage along 17. So anything that develops here, we'll have to have that site driveway.

And generally, when we review storage, we're not looking at trip generation for those kind of items, because you can't quantify them. I mean, you could have essentially storage, you can't punish someone for having storage of vehicles, you will only can look at the active parking spaces shown on the site. So we do take into consideration the pavement that the public service does have to maintain. I mean, we do grades on the pavement every year, we generally wouldn't proactively require someone to put down a heavier base sub sub base for a truck use. That's something that we take on after approval. Um, that's, I guess all for me, but I mean, this is sorry that's.

Retort to that, or is that part can I talk to that?

Or I mean, he's really just making statements. It's not a back and forth, but I just wanted to ask those questions based on what you presented you and your father. So I just want to I want us to have a better understanding as well as you.

Thank you both.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak for against this proposal? Please come forward. And are you two together as well? Okay, so one person sign in, one person begin to speak, and whoever's going to speak, would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

My name is Vanessa Mora, and I have not been sworn in.

Would you mind raising your right hand? Have neither one of you been sworn? I have. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do.

I do.

Thank you. Go ahead.

My name is Vanessa Mora. I am the owner of the residential property to the west of this address at 2667 Johnstown Road. As has been mentioned in this meeting, this is not in Columbus. It is in Mifflin Township. I do want a point of clarification that within the Franklin County Auditor's website and our taxes, we are considered residential. We're a family dwelling unit on lot. So I'm a bit confused regarding that statement. You know, since purchase, it has been identified as residential property on the map, it says residential property. And so I want to point out that is not being considered a residential property in consideration of the setback.

You were here and we spoke specifically and the applicant gave testimony that everything was resolved. Are you in agreement with that or no?

I'm not. I'm here in opposition of the application.

Okay. And based on you being, in your opinion, a residential lot. adjacent to the proposed site. Correct.

Yes. I do not believe that the setback between our property and this proposed project is sufficient. As I mentioned in my previous testimony, the distributor that is next to us is a distributor that has semi trucks that regularly come in and out, but there is a significant boundary between their business operations and our business, as well as operating hours. In every conversation that I've had with this property owner of the proposed application, this has been referred to as a parking project and only recently has it been referred to as a storage project. And so I'm deeply concerned about the significant shift there to now suddenly not put asphalt on that property. So first the setback consideration is I believe is not significant between our lots. Concern about the use that's being proposed which has not been consistent as well as concerned with vehicular congestion in this area has been pointed out previous testimony. This is 17th Avenue, Johnstown Road is a high accident intersection, which is why there's a proposed improvement for a roundabout in that section. With the trade school increasing their classes, there's additional traffic from their businesses. And so I do want to point out that I'm in agreement with their testimony. But as a resident, I've shared my family lives in this unit, my aging parents. And so I'm concerned about the light pollution as well as air quality and noise pollution that will result from this project. And so that is why I'm in opposition. While I have worked with the property owner, I do not believe that it is a property that should be next to residential property.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

My name is Nancy Mora. I was sworn in.

Okay, go ahead.

I agree completely with her. I do want to clarify how many feet they're asking for because this proposal is new. So where the storage in the shaded area starts, how many feet is between my property and what they're proposing is the shaded area. I can't quite see.

Question, gotcha. Yes. It appears to be...

It used to be five feet.

That looks like it's maybe 29, 28. Let me double check. You have a blown-up version of the site plan.

I think it says 25 feet storage setback.

So it's 25 feet. Okay. That's pretty significant, but it's not 100 or 200.

So on the site plan, it's labeled as 29, so greater than 25, obviously. Okay.

I'm in full agreement. I think the setback should be more significant. I think, is this on?

It's on. Just a little closer to you.

Okay. I agree completely. I think the setback that was already established, the 100 feet, would have been better for what our property is, a residential property. I mean, in my opinion, if I could get my way, we wouldn't have any storage there at all. But I want to, you know, argue in good faith. And I would have liked that setback to be in place.

okay thank you please go ahead and sign your name on a sheet anything else if i may um i wasn't at the may hearing so i'm kind of confused on cap staff said there wasn't a resident offering but it appears so the code speaks to not what the use is currently on that site but what the underlying zoning is according to the county that is limited industrial the zoning is limited industrial thank you

The use code on the auditor's website does say residence, but there's a difference between what the auditor's website says. They're for tax purposes. That's different than zoning. The use of the property is residential. The zoning is light industrial. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

All right. Thank you so much.

I'm sorry. I keep interrupting. What was your discussion of issues with the applicant?

We discussed the height of the fence, the... Mesh that would be added to the fence, uh, the, the need for greenery between our, our properties. Um, we did discuss the, um. Our concerns still with, you know, parked vehicle. So on the map, it shows storage again. That was a very quick shift. Um, uh, the, the asphalt was something that I didn't mention, but was not discussed at length. Um, just our desire for there to be asphalt rather than gravel, because it would impact our property significantly. have you um so the applicant did agree to landscaping have you looked at the new plan at all are you we did yes yes and and still i think for me the setback is just not significant enough so i you know i i i'm grateful for the applicant's um proactivity and reaching out to me and trying to to negotiate what that will look like but to me it's still not significant enough and so i'm in opposition thank you sure thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak for against this proposal as presented please step forward

Thank you so much. Would you please sign in, provide your name, and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

I have been sworn. My name is Barbara Tipton.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Tipton. And just go ahead and state your comments.

I work with the, and independent electrical contractors there at 3128 East 17th Avenue, and we operate a trade school. So to speak, we have 800 students in our program and our electrical apprenticeship program. A minimum of 200 of those are in school each afternoon and evening. In addition to that, we are 17th Avenue houses, I guess, parking lots for the airport. So there's quite a bit of traffic, automobile traffic, and now the tractor trailers have been introduced to the east of us. So my concern primarily is the traffic and the safety of our apprentices. They come from all parts of central Ohio. They have to be in school at a certain time. There are incidences where the tractor trailers are coming in and out, and they prevent the students from getting into the parking lot. I also am aware of the accidents that have taken place at the corner of Johnstown Road and 17th Avenue. So there's quite a concern on my part of the safety of our apprentices. The folks that support our training center have invested millions of dollars into the training center. I've been at that site myself for 26 years. We've been there over 30. So I've seen the increase in not only the need for electricians, but the money, the funds that are private funds that have been put into this property. We've recently bought 3120 East 17th Avenue next door to us because our plan is, and we're in the midst of expanding our training to HVAC. So we are performing a service for the community in that we are providing these workers for the community. addition to that we work with columbus school systems and suburban school systems with pre-apprentice programs so during the day we have high school students and other people who are looking to trade change jobs or or get into the trade they come in during the day for training as well so again it is the variances will allow additional Traffic, our plans to expand will bring in additional traffic. So, again, my concern is for the safety and everything that goes with that, and that's the truck noise. Those things are not conducive to this classroom.

Thank you so much. It sounds like you do good work where you are. I would remind you and every person in here that's speaking on this matter, this is a manufacturing district. Trucks are allowed. Traffic is allowed. You don't get to pick and choose who does the noise, so to speak. So thank you so much for your comments.

I can add, too, that I certainly am not against small businesses, and I do understand the difference in the variance, but I must speak to our concerns for our property and our students that come into there.

Truly, and I appreciate that. Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak for or against this proposal, please step forward.

Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Hi, my name is Greg Laws, and I have been sworn in, and I'm with the Independent Electoral Contractors of Central Ohio. Go ahead. You've got three minutes. I've got three minutes. Perfect. It'll just take two. I just want to speak to the sizable sacrifice of investment that we've made on East 17th Avenue, and it's all been made with 105 contractors of independent merit shop contractors that have sacrificially put dollars forward into this investment. Why I think it will be bad is simply if you look at page three of the high impact hazardous operations of this and how it will impact the investment that we have. And that's in your packet of the proposed variance impact study that we had done by the Horner Appraisal Group. And it actually shows through the appraiser's view and their calculations of how it will decrease the impact of our investment. Our investments, and as Mrs. Tipton spoke to, we have $3.5 million in 3128. and we have $2.8 million in 3120. So out of that investment of that corridor of our $2 billion airport, we feel that something, even though, as you say, it is available to be done, we feel that that's going to be a detriment not just to our properties, our adjacent property owners, and also to our city.

So you feel that the use... Or what part of the variance that's being requested do you feel is a detriment? I think where they have eliminated the density of the trailers.

I think if we keep it the way and we keep our setbacks or whatever you call those away from our property lines and allow them to park in the white space that we have there, we are all for that. But I think by enhancing the density of that, not only does it take all the things that everybody spoke about from the safety, but it's from the investment standpoint of what we had from the air pollution, the light pollution, all the other things that happen in that area. So the sizable investment that we've made for the students, for the workforce development, for the state of Ohio,

i think will be and it says not just what i think but the professionals have said on the impact study of what it will be if they are allowed to have this type of use in that area okay thank you so much thank you is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this proposal all right seeing none if the applicant can come forward and i'm just going to take a couple of minutes with my colleagues to look at this information that's been provided

Thank you.

All right.

Are you guys feeling more time to evaluate? Good. Okay, you guys can take a few minutes to address anything that you've heard for our consideration before we make a decision. Is there anything you'd like to add?

No, I don't think we need to add, excuse me, to add anything because we The most part, they have all the details in the last sitting. And we just went back to update what we are asked to update. What we are asking for is what the code requires that area is . is going to have that.

Right, but you're asking for variances, which means you're not in compliance with what's allowed.

Yes, the variances we are asking in the most part is from Johnstown Road, of which when my client bought the property. the right of way was at the middle of Dunstown Road. Then we moved it, what do you call it? the total fare was at 40. But then when we got into this project, we were asked to move it at 50. So now, which means now we've already taken off 90 feet from where we thought it was. And then to accommodate that, uh we now the setback again from the if we take the right of way at the thoroughfare line we're supposed to go again 50 feet inside the property and when we do that then this project will not hold because we eat up the entire project yes okay so anything else no okay

Well, first of all, I just want to say my name is Ayanna. I am the property owner. I appreciate everyone taking their time to share their concerns, and we understand that they care about their investment, their students, and the surrounding neighborhood. We respect that. Throughout this process, we worked very close with city staff, transportation, commercial zoning, and with our engineer, too. Every time there was a concern race, we revised the plans and made changes. We added landscaping, the screening address, the buffering side layout and we follow the city's directions to minimize impact for neighborhood properties. We understand the concerns about traffic, safety, noise, and lightning. This property was zoned for M2 when I purchased last year for a manufacturing district where industrial uses and truck related activities are anticipated. There's other truck storages in the neighborhood and not too far from where this is. Our proposal is for a professional managed semi-storage. So we are committed to operating the site responsibly and maintaining it in a way that respects the surrounding areas. With respect to traffic, this coordinator already serves industrial and commercial use. We're not proposing a large manufacturing plant for a high volume distribution. Center, we've worked throughout the series review process and revise the plans. We do not believe our use will be fundamentally change, you know, to traffic or like. The the industrial thing, so we do understand the concerns about the roads too. We intend to operate the site responsibly and a currency. So our goal is to have a business, as business owners, we want the neighbors, you know, I went to the young lady that was here, I went out and met with her. I told her that whatever that made them comfortable, I was willing to do, you know. I told whatever you asked us, this is how you want things to be done. We will if there is an issue with 17, we can have a gated. But when I purchased this property, I purchased with. You know, and there is other trucks in the area too. Um.

okay thank you so much i would say it seems to me that you have done everything as a responsible landowner and an applicant to try to get a resolution what's occurred here is in you coming back new people have entered into the equation They weren't informed or whatever the case may be. And so this is the opportunity for the community to come out and kind of weigh in on their opinion of what's taking place. And we've heard that tonight. So what we're going to do is to go through the process. I'll ask if the colleagues have any additional questions for the applicants. Okay.

And if I may, Chair, just jump in for the benefit of the board, but also the benefit of the public. The variances are evaluated under the seven-factor test in 3307.09 of the Columbus City Codes. I think you've heard evidence on both sides tonight, and you have some documentary evidence, plenty of testimonial evidence that you can and should weigh out loud on the record as you're making your evaluation. Again, the factors are to be weighed. They don't have to be checkmarked like a checkbox. The board is allowed to weigh the factors as they see proper and appropriate based on the evidence that they've heard tonight.

Thank you so much. I'll start by saying, addressing the Duncan factors, whether the property in question would yield, will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial. I think when we look at the numbers, it is substantial. But when we look at the location of where the numbers are impacting the site, they're not as significant. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, that's a two-part answer. The neighborhood would not substantially be altered as it's continuing the use of what's allowable in an M2 manufacturing district. What we do have now is a very subjective opinion of a state licensed appraiser rendering an opinion of a reduction in value for adjacent parcels, which could be significant. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, I don't think so. Whether the property or owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restrictions, I think that she did, just not understanding how The proposal might fit into the site. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say no. Please call the roll. We don't need a motion.

Sorry. Does a board member call the question?

Oh, I'm sorry. Do you call the question? I'll call the question.

Mr. Malek has called the question. Mr. Malek.

So I think for the majority, I agree with what the chair has stated. I think the one other thing I would just say is this, when I'm looking at this, I think in reassessing based on the, what I'm hearing from testimony that I think this variance is substantial. I think the setback request is a substantial one, but other than that, I think I agree with everything you'd said. So I'm voting no.

I agree with the chair's analysis, the Duncan factors, but taking into account, I do not think that the. Landscaping buffer is a nominal or significant variance. I do have concerns with the storage, the storage set back to the fact that there's a residence. However, relying on that, it's not zone residential. Um, I think the applicant has taken into account and done everything they can regarding the landscaping and the concerns of the neighbors. Um, and weighing all those factors, I vote in favor of the variances.

You vote yes? I vote yes. OK. Chair Jones? Thank you. I'm voting no. And unfortunately, you'd have to have all three in alignment. So I do apologize. The variance request is denied. Next case, BZA26-031 for 6000 Cooper Road. Please come forward.

They won't all take that long, hopefully.

No, I can assure you they won't. I wasn't expecting that. Yeah, I wasn't either. All right. Okay.

6000 Cooper Road is located on the east side of Cooper Road, approximately 400 feet north of Old Providence Lane. It is part of the Northland Community Council, and the existing zoning is our rural district. The 22.28-acre site is currently developed with a religious facility. Surrounding uses include multi-unit dwellings to the north, south, and east, and a mix of multi-unit and single-unit dwellings to the west. The applicant proposes to construct a loading zone and screened-in dumpster area on the site. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce the parking setback from 25 feet to 10 feet and reduce the building line from 40 feet to 20 feet. Division of Planning is fully supportive of the requested variances. Staff notes the proposed landscape screening of the loading area is consistent with Columbus growth strategy mixed use design guidelines. Therefore, planning is supportive of the request. Staff further notes that the land use recommendation was recently updated to mixed use one as a result of the passage of the Columbus growth strategy. That legislation took effect on Wednesday, February 25th, 2026. Staff note corresponding zoning as part of zone in economic and housing opportunity is still under consideration. The Division of Traffic Management has indicated that a right-of-way dedication of 40 feet from the center line of Cooper Road will be required per Columbus City Code 4309.17. The Northland Community Council has recommended approval of the requested variance voting 14 to 0 in favor. City Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the proposed loading and dumpster area will be sufficiently screened with landscaping consistent with Columbus Growth Strategy mixed-use design guidelines. We also recommend the following condition, that the applicant shall commit to the landscape screening illustrated on the stamped site plan that I will be circulating now. Chair.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Laurie Gunselman, and yes, I have been sworn. laurie gunzelman and yes i have been sworn thank you bernie larson i have not been sworn please raise your hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth the best of your knowledge and belief if so say i do thank you and whoever is not going to speak please sign in and i'll take whoever's first certainly um we don't really have that much more to add we feel that the staff has presented the information appropriately and we're happy to answer any questions the board staff commissioners have

Thank you so much. And you?

Okay.

I'm good. Whatever she says.

Any questions from my colleagues? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal? Please step forward, sir. You could make room for him.

Maybe a moment.

Okay.

Hey, Paul. I'm co-chair of the Norfolk Community Council Development Committee. I don't really have much to add to staff's... And you've been sworn?

Sorry? You've been sworn?

No, I haven't been, so...

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you.

As staff indicated, the Northland Community Council met with the applicant and their representative, David Perry, in late May. And the committee did approve a motion 14 to 0 to recommend approval without conditions. I'm here primarily if you have any questions for what we consider during our deliberations. But I believe staff has summarized our position.

Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll take the Duncan standards. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or other adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, that's unclear. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obviated through some method other than variance, I would say no. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done, I would say yes. Would someone call the question?

Call the question.

Question's been called. Please call the roll. Oh. Please come forward. Where did they go? You went too far away. Do you accept the condition that you'll commit to the site plan, the stamp site plan? Yes. Okay. Would someone call the question with the condition?

Call the question with the condition.

Please call the roll.

I agree with the chair's analysis, the Duncan factors, and vote in favor of the variance.

I concur with the chair as well and vote yes.

Yes, variances are granted. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And you both signed in?

Thank you. BZA26-034 for 25 Aldrich Road. Hi. Take your time and sign in there for us.

25 Aldrich Road is located on the south side of Aldrich Road, approximately 130 feet west of North High Street. It's within the boundaries of the Clintonville Area Commission and is zoned R3 residential. The 0.18 acre site is developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounded uses include single unit residential to the west and south, mixed commercial uses to the east, and a funeral home with associated parking to the north. The applicant proposes to construct a parking pad with a reduced parking setback from 25 feet to 15 feet and to allow a parking pad to encroach in a required side yard.

Division of Planning has no comments.

Division of Traffic Management has stated that the existing walkway on the eastern side of the parcel must be removed or relocated so that the access point can be located in its place. All other traffic comments have been addressed. The Clintonville Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of five to zero with one abstention. City Department's recommendation is that of approval. Staff can recommend approval as the request is minor and will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties and will allow for a driveway that is consistent with others in the area. And we do recommend the condition as stated by traffic that the existing walkway on the eastern side of the parcel must be removed or relocated.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? my name is alex and i have been sworn and i've signed thank you so much you have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as the area commission is there anything additional that you'd like to add Um, it's 4 bedroom home with 1 spot for off street parking.

Uh, the after we purchased the home, the city imposed parking restrictions directly in front of the house. I believe it's 8 to 4 on school days. Um, and so it creates a practical hardship for parking for my wife and I as well as family, friends and caregivers. Um. The other factor is that the lot itself is triangular with so the back of the property is about one third the length of the front of the home, which just creates a challenge to put the parking pad really in any other location. As I think was already stated, so the driveway will be concrete. It matches and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and we have the support of the local Clintonville Area Commission.

And do you understand the condition of removing the existing walkway?

Yeah, so as part of the site plan, it's being removed and replaced with the parking pad.

So you are in agreement with it? Yes. Very good. Any questions for my colleagues? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none. Let's go over the Duncan factors. Whether the property will yield a reasonable return, yes. Whether their variance is substantial, no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood will be altered, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, not likely that they knew whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. No. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning variance would be observed. I would say yes. Would someone like to call the question with the condition as presented?

Call the question with the conditions.

Questions been, or excuse me, questions been called with the condition. Please call the roll.

I concur with the chair and vote yes.

I concur with the chair's analysis in taking into the fact that the triangular shape of the lot and limited rear axis all weigh in favor of getting the variances.

I vote yes. Congratulations. Variance is granted. Thank you. BZA 26-036 for 155 South Ohio, 1105 Oak Street and 1101 Oak Street. So I just have a question. Is this one parcel? I don't think it is.

No, this is going to be a result of a lot split.

It's three parcels. Okay.

Get my pen sharpened here. Okay. So BZA 26036 is located on the west side of South Ohio between Oak Street and Elliott Alley. It's within the boundaries of the Near East Area Commission and is zoned R3 Residential. Site is developed with two single unit dwellings and one undeveloped parcel. Surrounding uses are a mix of multi and single unit residential development. The applicant proposes to reconsider, reconfigure a previous lot split established as a result of council variance CV 97-045 approved in 1997. The property consisted of two platted lots that were reconfigured through that approval into three lots to permit three single unit dwellings with reduced lot area, lot width, setbacks, and increased lot coverage. the current request includes variances to reduce the required lot size from 5 000 square feet to 3 854 square feet for 155 south ohio and to 1000 or excuse me 3 154 square feet for 1105 oak street and 1101 oak street to reduce the required lot width from 50 to 37.14 feet for 1105 oak street and 1101 oak street um To reduce the required south side yard from three feet to 1.34 feet for 155 South Ohio. To allow driveway and concrete pad to remain within the required side yard for 155 South Ohio. To allow motor vehicle parking within zero feet of the right-of-way line for 11, excuse me, 155 South Ohio and 1105 Oak Street. To reduce the required clear vision triangle from 10 feet to 8.49 feet at the alley for 155 South Ohio Avenue and from 30 feet to 25 feet at the corner for 1105 Oak Street. To remove the required building setback from 10 feet to 4.7 feet for 155 South Ohio and from 10 feet to 7.3 feet for 1105 Oak Street. To reduce the required parking setback line from 10 feet to zero for 155 South Ohio and 1105 Oak Street. And finally, to allow compact parking space with reduced depth for 155 South Ohio and 1105 Oak Street. Division of Planning has no comment on the request. And Division of Traffic Management, I'm going to defer to my colleague. I don't know if you all know Brandon Hayes. I don't have a nameplate for him.

Yeah, brandon vision traffic management so I think our only issue would be the reduction of the width for the parking space that can't be legitimized with this variance because the. Parking space reduction doesn't accommodate a parking space and if you see by the aerial, it would legitimize parking within the right away. So we, I guess, reviewed the plan the first time, and then I think it got updated with new variances, and we weren't able to comment that formally, but we're here today to say we need to, I guess, work with the applicant or understand how that would be remedied outside of a reduction or a compact parking space because we would not support basically the board will be approving an encroachment to the right-of-way, which we could not support.

Do you understand that? Please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn.

Alex Nick dis representing side street studio and yes, I have been sworn. Okay. Um, yeah. Could you repeat that concern please?

I think 1 of your variances is to reduce the size of a parking space from the standard 9 by 18 with to something of the order. Uh, 1212 foot and with, I guess, geometrically that doesn't work. Um, any overhang, uh, you usually, if you have a compact space, the overhang is on private property. The overhang is within the right away. So you're. effectively legitimizing, trying to legitimize parking within the right-of-way, which you can see on the aerial, the cars are hanging out into the street.

So the site plan that I have here, maybe if we can, are you referring to the spot on 155?

Yeah, I think it's any spots that, I guess, front Ohio Avenue, like if you don't have the...

So these spaces, zoom, scroll up a little bit, Dane. These spaces here go... you go these here are reduced to 15 rather than the required 18 and then these here are reduced to 12.45 rather than the required 18. correct um and to that i would say that it's currently an existing condition that is operating how the parcel is used but

When you introduce all of these other changes, though, it comes to the surface. So you're asking for relief from it now, and traffic is saying that's not allowed.

They simply can't do it.

And is that 3312.29 that we're talking about?

For the size of the parking space?

The variance request, is that what we're discussing, 3312.29?

I believe so. Let me double-check. Yeah, so it's 3312.29, yeah.

Okay. So, I mean, even if we were to approve it accidentally, it's not going to get zoning clearance. So how would you like to address that?

I guess that would have to be something of extending that existing concrete pad to... Well, I mean, we can't approve your request today.

So I think the best solution... if it were me, is to remove it altogether and we can weigh in on the others unless you want to table it and come back with a new plan altogether that includes that.

I mean, being transparent from traffic, the absolute minimum we've approved historically is 16 feet. So if you are able to accommodate a 16 foot length by us, of course we'd have to See it, and then also, if you are requesting different variances. If you were to request a variance, not have onsite parking supportive of that too. Um, but that's, I know a new variance. So that'd be something faster clients.

Right? So, by removing that, we still would not be able to formalize this today. We'd still need to come back for the additional variance at that.

I'm wondering if we could do this as a condition. Pardon? If the singular issue is the length of the parking space, we could either add a condition or change the request of the variance to be 16 rather than 12.

I mean, I think we could do that legally because it's not more. Right. It's less.

Agreed. You could do that legally, but it runs into the practical issue of traffic management needing to see what is actually proposed. And you still have another step to do. And Brandon, are you comfortable with a 16 foot variance?

Yeah. I think as long as you can extend the, I guess the plan South.

The 16 feet, I don't know how much room you have to extend the plan North and we won't be the ones basically saying that we just are firmly relying on the fact that 16 has been the absolute minimum because that's the generic window.

Understood so I can repeat my options then.

You could table and come back and do the entire thing. You can risk it and we go forward. We could remove that variance, but you'd still have to come forward because there is some parking required, right? So you'd still have to come back with some kind of a solution for parking or you can chance it and modify it to 16 feet in hopes that it'll still be approved and clear zoning clearance.

I'll choose to table.

You sure? Okay. There's a motion or would somebody like to make a motion to table?

So moved.

Second. I'm doing this a little out of order. It's been moved and seconded. Is there anyone that's here tonight to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing none. Great. Please call the roll.

Yes. Yes.

Yes, the matter is tabled. Thank you so much. Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience. No problem. BZA 26-038 for 2400 Corporate Exchange Drive.

And a reminder, this is a special permit.

I thought you said we didn't have any.

I said I didn't know. I think you had. Now I do.

All right, 2400 Corporate Exchange Drive is located at the northwest corner of Corporate Exchange Drive and Community Park Drive as part of the Northland Community Council, and the existing zoning is RAC Regional Activity Center District. The five-acre site is currently developed with an office building. Surrounding uses include similar offices to the north and west, a religious facility to the south, and single-unit dwellings to the east. The applicant proposes to install a portable building within the parking lot associated with the office building. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow a portable building to remain on site. Previous case BZA 24-017 was approved to allow a portable building, this portable building, to remain on site, but final site compliance plan approval was never sought and the BZA board order has lapsed. The Columbus Growth Strategy does not address special permits, therefore the Division of Planning has no comments on the request. Staff note that the land use recommendation was recently updated to business and institutional campus as a result of the passage of Columbus Growth Strategy. That legislation took effect on Wednesday, February 25th, 2026. Staff note the site was rezoned regional activity center as part of the zone in phase one efforts. Division of Traffic Management has no comments, and the Northland Community Council has recommended approval of the requested variance of voting 14-0 in favor. City Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval, as this variance has already previously been granted by the Board, though due to inaction on the part of the applicant, the previous Board order had lapsed, necessitating a new BZA application. Chair.

Thank you. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

My name is Marty Brenner, and I have not been sworn.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you so much. Were you the person that came in in 2017? Uh, no. Okay.

23, 2024. Yes. Okay.

So basically they didn't follow up on something for the site.

Yeah, so variances are required usually for getting final site compliance for commercial projects like this. But if you don't get final site compliance, then it doesn't update the site plan of record. It's like this version. this change was never made. And so then again, since we have that, was it 12 months before a board order expires, if you haven't gotten your final site compliance plan approved and started work, that lapses. So that is what happened.

Okay, thank you. So are you prepared? You want to keep this here, presumably? Yes. And you're prepared to do whatever is necessary to maintain that? Yes. Okay. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add to the request?

No.

Okay. And for our colleagues, do you guys have any questions or concerns? Is there anyone in the audience that's here to speak for or against this proposal? Hello, Mr. Paul.

There's more than enough staff support, although I'm here if you have any questions for us.

Thank you. Thank you so much. To grant a special permit for uses listed in Chapter 3389, where it's shown that the special use can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, without substantial impairment of the general purpose and intent of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood. To grant special permits for the relocation or expansion of non-conforming uses?

You just need, you're good. You just needed to read A.

Okay, thank you. Section A. So, with that being said, would someone like to call the question for the application?

I will call the question.

Question's been called. Please call the roll.

I concur with the chair and vote yes.

likewise concur with the chair and vote yes in favor of the special permit yes variance our special permit is granted please be sure to execute whatever is necessary so you can keep it in place thank you very much thank you bza26-040 for 37 37 32 to 37 36 sullivan avenue and a reminder on this one we have both a variance and a special permit so at the appropriate time please take those questions separately

BZA 26-040 for 3732 through 3736 Solvent Avenue. It's located on the west side of Ruffing Lane, approximately 640 feet north of Solvent Avenue. It's zoned M Manufacturing and located in the Greater Hilltop Area Commission. The 3 parcels have a combined area of 6.68 acres and site is developed with a towing and storage operation. Surround uses include a religious facility to the South automotive repair facilities to the West. A public park to the North and multi unit residential to the East. The applicant proposes to bring an existing towing and storage facility into compliance. A special permit is being requested to allow a limited impound lot on the property and a variance is being requested to reduce the setback of open storage of materials other than junk, waste products, salvage, or wrecked automobiles from 20 feet from other lot lines to zero feet as shown on the setback exhibit. Planning is supportive of the requested setback variance, however, has no comment on the special permit request as Columbus Growth Strategy does not address special permits. Staff note that the requested variance will bring the site into compliance. CGS industrial design guidelines recommend buffering industrial sites from adjacent residential uses with a combination of existing vegetation, planted buffers, visual screens, continuous hedge, mounding, masonry, or screen fencing. And appropriate setbacks staff recognize the screening provided by existing pine trees and privacy fence along the East property line as mitigating factors for support. Therefore, staff is supportive of the requested setback variance, but has no comment on the special permit request. Division of traffic management has no comments. The greater hilltop area commission recommends approval this request by a vote of 10 to 0. And staff recommends approval of this request because the proposed impound area will be limited and will be adjacent to other similar uses. And the reduced storage setback request is limited to internal property lines and property lines shared with other similar manufacturing zone parcels. Furthermore, the site is currently screened by the way of a privacy fence and pine trees along the eastern property line, reducing the site's impact on the residential properties to the east.

Mute yourself yet. I have questions. So the greater Hilltop area commission, did they have two votes or one vote? And I know I'm asking you, I'm just trying to put on the record that they were 10 to zero for both of those. Or do you know?

I believe it was just one vote for the two requests under one. I'm pulling up my packet. Yeah. They wrote the Greater Hilltop Area Commission approved the special permit for an impound lot and the zoning variances regarding setbacks. So you do have it under one vote.

Okay. But the same thing. Okay. Thank you. And then what is a limited impound lot?

I will let the applicant explain that.

Okay. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Yeah, my name is Zach Walker with Plank Law Firm, and I have been sworn. Okay. So I'll start with your question. And the idea of the limited impound lot is, one, it's an impound lot. I know there's also junk salvage, different things like that, but it's about putting cars there that have been towed. Second, it is limited to the area. If you kind of look central to the site plan, there is a...

crosshatch area and it is located near the other industrial adjacent property so it's limited in location it is not across the entirety of okay so it's not a limited permit it's a limited location correct got it thank you so you have the recommendation of approval from the area commission on both the special permit as well as the variances And you have the city staff recommendation of approval for the variances. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

I'll just reiterate that this is in an industrial area. There's also some mitigating factors that the area to the east is zoned institutional instead of a true residential. But we still are providing screening on that side that's opaque. We've located the more intense operations to the west or to the rear of the property too. limit the impact that could potentially happen there there is historically industrial many of the property uh set property lines setbacks are because the properties can't be combined it's three separate parcels but then the others are located near the other industrial uses for that reason you know we think it's a reasonable request um i can go through this very the dunk you don't need to unless you but this one's right we're gonna we're gonna do that ourselves

Okay, anything else?

That's what I got.

Okay, any questions for this applicant? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none. To grant a special permit, to grant special permits for uses listed in Chapter 3389, where it is shown that the special use can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without substantial impairment of the general purpose and intent of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood.

And with that I would ask for someone to call the question for the special permit I'll call a question for that special rent The questions been called please call the roll I think that the fact that the applicant has limited the location of the permit Taking the fact to what the chair said for the standard I vote in favor I agree with what the rest of the

staff or our colleagues have said thank you and vote yes yes special permit is granted uh regarding the variance 33 63.41a

Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, probably not. Whether the variance is substantial, I don't think it is. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions, I would say yes. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, probably not. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I think yes. That being said, would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

Questions have been called. Please call the roll.

Concur with the chair and vote yes.

I concur with the chair in taking into the fact that the applicant has provided the intense uses more to the eastern and away from, I'm sorry, is it? more to the east and away from the west, which has the potential. I'm sorry. You provided the intense uses more to the west to align with the similar uses. I appreciate that and taking that into account with colleagues' analysis of the Duncan factors, I vote in favor of the variance.

Yes, variance is granted. Thank you so much. BZA 26-041 for 3140 Ontario Street. All right.

3140 Ontario Street is located on the east side of Ontario Street, approximately 150 feet north of East North Broadway. It's part of North Linden Area Commission and existing zoning is R3, residential district. The .24 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling and an associated detached garage. Surrounding uses include similar single unit dwellings to the north, south, and west, and a multi-unit apartment complex to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a second detached garage behind the existing garage in order to store a recreational vehicle and is requesting a variance to increase the allowable square footage devoted to garage space from 720 square feet to 1,363 square feet. The Division of Planning has no comments. And after a review of an appeal of their determination that two accesses shall not be allowed, the Division of Traffic Management has revised their position to one of support for the requested variance. The North Linden Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variance, voting 5-0 in favor with one abstention. And City Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the Division of Traffic Management has supported a second vehicular access for the subject property in this specific instance. Furthermore, the total garage space shall not exceed the living area of the primary structure on this parcel, which itself totals 1,364 square feet. Chair.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Eugene Johnson, Jr. Eugene Johnson, Sr. And I have been sworn.

And we have.

Thank you. Please sign in on the sheet when you get a chance. You have the recommendation of approval from the city as well as the area commission. No conditions other than clarification about the size. And you guys are clear on that.

With that, is there anything more that you'd like to add?

Okay. Colleagues, any questions? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented?

Seeing and hearing none, we'll address the Duncan factors.

Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance, yes. Whether the variance is substantial, no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, it's unknown. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, not likely. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I think yes. With that, would someone call the question? call a question question's been called please call the roll um i agree with my colleagues analysis of the duncan factors and vote yes i too uh concur with the colleagues and vote yes yes variance is granted good luck with your new garage thank you thank you bza26-042 for 5800 west broad street

VZ826-042 for 5800 West Broad Street. It's located on the northwest corner of West Broad Street and Gallo Road. It's zone CAC, Community Activity Center. It's located in the Westland Area Commission. The 11.39-acre site is developed with a grocery store and associated parking. Surround uses include single-unit residential to the north, multi-unit residential to the west, and mixed-use commercial to the south and east. The applicant proposes to construct a 6,550-square-foot tire and auto service center. Variances are being requested to reduce the front street facade zone requirement from 60% to 22.8%, to increase the maximum front setback from 25 feet to 94.8 feet along the eastern property line, and to reduce the minimum side setback from 10 feet to 3.7 feet along the northern property line. Planning continues to generally support the requested variances, but request street trees are provided along the street frontage. Staff recognize limitations at the site due to the existing dry stormwater detention basin and underground stormwater line. Columbus growth strategy mixed use design guidelines recommend parking lots should be screened from view of the uh from public right-of-way and adjacent development additionally cgs recommends street trees should be provided as part of new development staff note the proposed mounding shrubs and headlight screening provided on the updated site plan to provide screening of the proposed parking staff requests street trees are provided between the existing sidewalk and gallo road if recommended by the city forester Therefore, planning continues to generally be supportive of the requested variances, but request street trees along the street frontage as recommended by the CGS design guidelines. Division of Traffic Management informed the applicant that a right-way dedication of 80 feet from the center line of West Broadway will be required. However, since the lot will be split and the area proposed for the development does not front along West Broad Street, this comment has been waived. Uh, this application, uh. When the report went out the, we hadn't received the recommendation form yet, but the Westland area commission recommends approval of this request by a vote of 8 to 1. And staff recommends approval this quest, because the applicant has oriented building the best they can to reduce the degree of the variances requested without impacting the existing storm water attention basin along Galloway road. We are recommending the condition that the applicant will provide street trees along the Galloway Road frontage in accordance with the City Forester.

Would you please indicate your names and whether or not you were sworn?

I'm Ben Sambita, and yes, I was sworn.

Neil Bates, I was sworn.

Okay. And do you understand the condition that's being requested? And are you in agreement?

Yeah, yes, happy to add the landscaping.

Okay, thank you. You have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as the area commission now, Westland. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add to the proposal real quick?

For some reason on my report, 1 of the conditions did not carry over. There is a 2nd. That the application will only be effective in the area described by the legal description in the staff report for this case. And that is a condition by traffic. Just. to limit it to the area that is shown so that right away dedication requirement can be waived.

Do we need a site plan stamp for that?

No. Okay. Because there's a legal description that's included in the packet.

Okay. Do you guys understand that?

I need you to give me a yes verbally. Okay.

Thank you. Anything additional that you'd like to add?

I think Steven covered it. We appreciate working with him through the process. Um, again, that existing store water pond and the 36 inch, uh, storm water pipe that by for case the site causes the hardship for the property. Um, not just our use and so we're here today to seek those variances.

Very good, thank you. Any questions from my colleagues? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll address the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, the answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, it's uncertain. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, I would say no. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say yes. Would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

with the condition of the trees and the, I'm sorry, with the two conditions as stated.

Yeah, with the two conditions. Calling the question. Concur with the chair and vote yes.

I likewise concur with the chair and vote yes.

Yes, variances are granted. Good luck with the project.

Thank you. Thank you.

BZA26-043 for 30, excuse me, 9300 Lyra Drive. Look at that man walk up here. I love it.

Cane or anything anymore.

New man. BZA 26-043 for 9300 Lyra Drive. It's located on the southeast corner of Lyra Drive and East Powell Road. It's zoned LC4, Limited Commercial District, and it's located in the Far North Columbus Communities Coalition. The two parcels have a combined area of 12.6 acres, and the site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding uses include single-unit residential to the west, north, and east, and hotels directly to the south with commercial further to the south. The applicant proposes to construct a 125,545 square foot indoor entertainment facility and is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required from 419 spaces to 340. Planning is supportive of the requested variance. Columbus growth strategy guiding principles state parking should be balanced with the goals of reducing development's impact on the natural environment, creating walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, and encouraging the use of transit. Staff note the requested parking reduction is consistent with this guideline and recognize the proposed sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure at the site. Additionally, CGS states that parking lots should be screened from the view of public right-of-way and adjacent development. Staff note the existing vegetation at the site which provides additional screening of the proposed parking from the adjacent highway. Lastly, CGS recommends that blank Blank walls should not be oriented to primary streets. CGS notes buildings with blank walls adjacent to side streets and residential areas should use building articulation, landscaping, and art to mitigate impacts on adjacent uses. Staff encouraged including additional landscaping on the north and west elevations to further buffer the site from adjacent uses. However, do not condition support on this request. Therefore, staff is supportive of the requested reduction of required parking at the site. Division of Traffic Management informed the applicant that a right-of-way dedication of 60 feet from the centerline of Latter-day Drive and 50 feet from the centerline of Powell Road will be required. A right-of-way dedication has been approved, resolving this comment. The Far North Columbus Communities Coalition recommends approval of this request by a vote of 7-0, and staff recommends approval of this request because the large number of parking spaces required is the result of a large portion of the building being occupied by the go-kart track, which can only be used by a limited number of people at a certain time. Staff also supports this application because the proximity to players, hotels, and bicycle infrastructure will encourage patrons to walk or bike to this location.

Thank you. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Jose Pazmino, I've been sworn.

And Dave Perry, yes, I've been sworn.

Okay. You have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as the area commission. You have a very sensible explanation as to why the parking spaces would be reduced. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

Nothing further to add unless the board has questions.

Thank you so much. Any questions for my colleagues? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll review the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. I would say yes. Whether the variance is substantial, arguably it could be considered substantial, but based on the proposed use, I don't think it's unrealistic. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I would say likely. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, no. whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done. By granting the variance, I say yes. Would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

Question's been called. Please call the roll.

I agree with the chair's analysis. The dunking factor is a vote yes.

I concur with the chair as well. Vote yes.

Yes, variance is granted. Good luck with the project.

Great, thank you.

BZA 26-044 for 2164 Ontario Street.

2164 Ontario Street is located at the northeast corner of Ontario Street and Maynard Avenue. It's within the South Linden Area Commission and is zoned R3 residential. Site is undeveloped and surrounding uses are primarily single unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to construct a single unit dwelling with a detached garage. Variance is being requested to reduce the building line on a corner lot from 8.3 feet to 5 feet. Division of Planning has no comment. Division of Traffic Management states, with the proposed building construction, sidewalk will be required to be constructed along the Ontario Street and Maynard Avenue frontages of the site per Department of Public Service sidewalk and shared use path requirements. South London Area Commission recommends approval of the request. The vote's not in the staff report, but I believe it was 10 to 0. Staff recommends approval because the requested variance is limited in scope and will allow development of an undeveloped residential lot. The reduced building line is consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area and is not expected to negatively impact adjacent properties. Chair.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

Yes, Emily Long-Rayfield, and I have not been sworn in.

And who do you represent here?

Uh, I'm representing healthy homes and we're building on behalf of the central Ohio community land trust.

And can you guys confirm if she has the authority to speak in bind for them?

Healthy homes is the applicant.

Pardon? Healthy homes is the applicant. Okay. Not the owner though. So the owner signed off on it. COSIC signed off on it.

I would need to check the front page of the application, but I assume so, yeah. Okay.

I've seen her before. I'm just trying to make sure that we have it all in alignment. Please raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony that you provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief of so say I do I do thank you so much you have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as I think this one has the area Commission. South London recommended approval do you have anything additional that you'd like to add for the various requested I don't have any questions okay any questions for my colleagues.

just a question about the sidewalk so they are part of this or not can you say yes yeah they're you're putting them in yes we will put them in okay we don't need a condition it'd be a code requirement right okay okay

Anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll do the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Looks like maybe not because it's restricting the building. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, I would say no. Would adjoining property owners suffer a substantial detriment, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, I'd say no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I would say probably not. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, probably not. whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the permit or the variance i would say yes would someone like to call the question i'll call the question question's been called please call the roll i'll concur with the chair and vote yes i concur with the chair and vote yes yes variance is granted good luck bza26-046 for 1134 evergreen road

1134 Evergreen Road is located on the north side of Evergreen Road, approximately 325 feet east of Lockbourne Road. It's part of the Far South Columbus Area Commission and existing zoning is R2 Residential District. The 0.42 acre site is currently developed with a religious facility. Surrounding uses include single unit dwellings to the north, south, and east, and a vacant lot to the west. The applicant proposes to legitimize a front porch that had been enclosed without a permit from the city. The applicant is thus requesting a variance to reduce the front building setback from 30 feet to 26 feet. Division of Planning has no comments, nor does the Division of Traffic Management, and the Far South Columbus Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variance, voting 8-0 in favor. City Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variance would result in a building line that is still significantly far setback from the right-of-way, which is consistent with the development pattern in the surrounding area. Chair.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether you were sworn? Steve Schwab, I have been sworn in.

Mark Miller, and I have been sworn in.

Okay. Mr. Miller, you said you had? I'm sorry. Mr. Schwope? Mr. Schwope, yes. You've been sworn in? Okay, thank you. You have the recommendation of approval from the city, as well as the area commission.

Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? Not at this time, unless I can answer some questions by the board.

Okay. Any questions from the board members? No. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll review the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, yes. Whether the variance is substantial, no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, I don't expect that they did. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, no. whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement, whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I believe so. With that being said, would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

The question's been called.

Please call the roll.

I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

I, too, agree with the chair and vote yes.

Yes, the variance is granted. Good luck with the project.

Thank you.

Thank you. You're welcome. BZA 26-047 for 3469 Eken Road.

3469 Eken Road is located on the south side of Eken Road, approximately 200 feet west of Demarest Road. It's within the boundaries of the Greater Hilltop Area Commission and is zoned R2 residential. The site is developed with single unit dwellings. Surrounding uses are primarily single unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to raise the existing front porch and construct a deck. A variance is being requested to reduce the building line from 20 feet to 10 feet. The Division of Planning has no comment, and the Division of Traffic Management has no comment. The Greater Southeast Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of 10-0. City staff recommends approval because the requested variance is limited in scope and is not expected to negatively impact adjacent properties surrounding the neighborhood. The request is consistent with the established residential character of the area and represents a reasonable use of the property. Chair?

It's just these two numbers.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

Lindsay Abel. Yes, I was sworn. Stephanie Bullock. Yes, I have been sworn.

Okay, thank you. You have the recommendation of approval from the Greater Hilltop Area Commission, as well as city staff. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

I just wish this process was easier.

So sorry you not have a great experience. So sorry. Anything else?

It's a death trap right now, so.

Okay. Any questions or comments from my colleagues on the board? No. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll review the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, the answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I would argue no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, I would say no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I would think not. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, I don't think so. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done, I think yes. Would someone call the question? call the question question's been called please call the roll i agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes i likewise agree with the chair and vote yes yes variance is granted good luck and get that death trap moving you're welcome bza 26-048 1485 sunbury road

BZ826-048 for 1485 Sunbury Road. It's located on the west side of Sunbury Road between Holt Avenue and Argyle Drive. It's owned to LC4 Limited Commercial and it's located in the North Central Area Commission. The 0.34 acre site is developed with a multi-tenant neighborhood shopping center. Surround uses include single unit residential to the west, an eating and drinking establishment to the south, a religious facility to the north, and undeveloped parcels to the east. The applicant proposes to add a 15 by 25 foot external cooler to the whole avenue elevation of the existing multi-tenant neighborhood shopping center. Variances are being requested to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required from 15 to 12 and to reduce the building setback along Holt Avenue from 40 feet to 15 feet. This property was the subject of Z02-104, which rezoned the property from rural to limited commercial to allow for mixed use mixed commercial development. Planning is fully supportive of the requested variances. CGS mixed use design guidelines recommend service and loading zones should be located to the rear side or in an internal location to reduce visibility and noise and should be screened appropriately. CGS also recommends parking lots should be screened from view of Public right away and Jason development staff note, the proposed landscaping along sunbury road to screen the parking lot from the right away staff note, the added landscaping along whole avenue to screen the addition staff note, the proposed landscaping. Landscape screening is consistent with mixed use design guidelines, although the proposed. Although proposed in the right away staff to 1st to the Department of public service for approval staff also note the proposed dumpster screening at the existing dumpster area. Therefore planning is fully supportive of the requested variances, but the 1st to for approval of the plantings. Division of Traffic Management requested that the right-of-way boundaries along Sunbury Road be updated to reflect 50 feet from the center line, which will be present upon completion of the right-of-way acquisition that is in process. This comment has been resolved. The applicant was informed that a right-of-way dedication of 40 feet from the center line of Holt Avenue will be required, but they can request a right-of-way exemption, which the applicant plans to do. This comment can be addressed during the final site compliance step. The North Central Area Commission recommends approval of this request by a vote of 6-0, and staff recommend approval of the requested variances because the parking reduction is minor and the proposed cooler addition will be screened along Holt Avenue to lessen the impact of the reduced setback. Do you have the condition that if any of the proposed vegetative screening is to be located in the right-of-way, then the applicant will need to work with the Department of Public Service and the City Forester to see what is most appropriate for the site?

Do you have, or excuse me, would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

Yes, I was sworn.

Sam will be the owner. Okay.

I'm Kim Ross, architect working with the owner, and I've been sworn.

Okay, thank you. You understand the conditions that are being required? Yes. Okay, and you accept those?

Yes.

Okay. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? You do have the recommendation of approval from the area commission as well as the city?

I think Stephen pretty much presented everything. He did a good job. He did a good job.

He did a good job. Any questions from my colleagues?

Just a question from the curb cuts, three of them. So is that just you guys didn't address any of that stuff or won't or? I'm just curious how.

Because normally they do.

Curb cuts sound very exciting. they're being good guys okay yeah you guys understand all of that yes okay

All right, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented?

Please step forward, and if you can make one space available.

Would you please provide us with your name and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

Yes, I was born. My name is Alfonso Hooper. I'm a North Central Area Commissioner for the community of Brittany Hills and the North, the Vice President for the community of Brittany Hills. I'm coming down here in support of Mr. Sam and his due diligence. We've been working with this for a year. We'd like to thank you all very diligently because we have been a a food desert. They took our Kroger's away 30 years ago and we had to go 20 miles to go to Kroger's and we don't have too many food places. And he took on the task of making that carryout almost a real store where we can get vegetables and kids' writings and stuff like that. and a store that a neighborhood really needs. And he's always partnership with our community as if he's lived there. And we honor him and we honor you all for understanding what neighborhoods really need. At one time, we had several stores. but now Brittany Hills don't have several stores and he reached out and touched the neighborhood in more ways than one. And I'm just here to support him and our neighborhood. They represent about 1500 houses in and around this facility. We are waiting and we've been doing this for a whole year and, and we ready to get a store where we can walk to and serve our community. And I'm just here to thank him and, He's putting his money as well as his due diligence in making our neighborhood a better place to live.

Thank you so much. Just sign in on the sheet if you don't mind. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Okay. Seeing and hearing none, I'll review the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, yes. It sounds like there's a very beneficial use and thank you, sir, for acknowledging that. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance i would say no whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services i would say no whether the property owner purchased the property knowing the knowledge or with the knowledge of the zoning restriction i would say probably not Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, I'd say no. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning variance or zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done, I would say yes. With that, I would see if anyone would call the question. I'll call the question. Question's been called with, I'm sorry, with the conditions as presented.

With the conditions as presented.

Okay, thank you. Please call the roll.

I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

I concur as well. Vote yes.

Yes, the variance is granted. Variances are granted. Thank you so much. Thank you. BZA 26-049 for 4951 Dublin Road.

This barn's already built.

4951 Dublin Road is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road and France Road. It's within the Hayden Run Civic Association and is zoned PUD 8. Site is developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses are primarily single unit dwellings. The applicant was cited for building a second detached garage. Variances are being requested to allow a second garage to increase the maximum allowable garage space and to increase the maximum height of a detached garage. Planning is supportive of the proposal. Staff notes that the garage is existing. Columbus growth strategy residential design guidelines recommend single bay garage doors and or garage doors with windows are preferred and noted. Other techniques such as dark color garage doors are recommended to reduce the visual impact of the garage on the streetscape. Staff recognize the commitment to dark color garage door to match the structure as a mitigating factor of support. Staff encourage additional transparency in the form of windows to further reduce the visual impact of the garage as recommended by the Columbus Growth Strategy. CGS also recommends buffering and screening should include elements such as existing and new vegetation, fencing, masonry walls, and mounding. Staff recognize the board on board fence along the perimeter of the rear yard for screening as an additional mitigating factor for support. Therefore, planning in support of the proposal. The Division of Traffic Management has no comments, and the Hayden Run West Civic Association recommends approval with a vote of 2-0. Staff can recommend approval of the requested variance. While staff do not traditionally support oversized detached garages, the garage is existing, and the proposal will legitimize the current site condition. Staff recognizes the applicant's commitment to provide a dark garage door to match the existing structure as a mitigating factor for support. Therefore, staff can support the requested variances.

Chair. Thank you. Thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you were sworn? Philip Schoeller.

And yes, I've been sworn. Okay, thank you. I have a question for staff.

You said quite a few things as conditions, and are you not putting them on here because they're done? I thought I heard conditions. I'm sorry.

We're not attaching conditions to this. I think what you're referencing is planning's comments with regard to, you know, it being screened and it having a dark color garage door as mitigating factors for support. That's their rationale, but we're not attaching conditions to it.

Because they exist. Yeah, because they're doing those things. That's what I just wanted to know to make sure. Okay. And you have two members of your community that vote on these things?

The Civic Association, yeah, it's a small body.

Two people.

Maybe two in attendance, but I think they only have three.

Yeah, one of them didn't show up.

Okay. It would just be odd to have two people and it was two to zero. So I was like, where's the third person or where's anybody else? I was hoping for a 10-0 like some of the other people had.

Okay. Only two.

This is substantial. Just for the record, can we just kind of talk about why? Because we don't typically – we've got an architect here. I'm a real estate person. We don't typically like to do things that would potentially set precedent on such a public road, frankly. So can you walk us through why?

Yes. So short answer is to accommodate a fifth wheel camper with the standard height of those is typically 13 feet, seven inches, including the AC units on top. So the opening of 14 is to accommodate the 13.7. And then the extra two feet is to accommodate a roll-up metal garage door, which is literally like a roll at the top, excuse me, underneath the truss. So that's why it's the height that it is. That's the only reason it's the height that it is.

Okay.

And how big is your lot? It's just shy of two-thirds of an acre, I believe. Okay. Like 0.65 maybe. Okay. Okay.

All right. Well, there are no conditions. Again, you do have the recommendation of approval from your civic association. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? No, sir. Okay. Any questions for my colleagues?

I just have one picture. There doesn't appear to be a camper in the garage. Is that just a regular car?

I could elaborate a little bit. I had a camper before this parked on that area and it, first time ever owning one it got absolutely hammered by the weather and birds and everything else especially the sun and it started to take an effect pretty quickly i mean i didn't have it that long before i started to see some of the effects of the weather uh on it so i sold the truck that i used to tow it and the camper so that i could do this you know instead and then and but Assuming I can afford to get a camper again, put one in there. In the meantime, my son parks his car in there to keep the sun from hammering on it.

So the intention is to purchase a camper and be using that for that?

Yeah, the intention is to put another fifth wheel camper RV in there. And there's not going to be a whole lot of room around it for anything else, quite frankly, due to the width. And the doors, he had mentioned the doors. The doors are actually already purchased. That was the next thing that was going to get put in. And they will be painted to match. And actually, the house is also going to get the same siding on the whole house as well.

So there's no door?

There are two doors. But we couldn't install them because on December 7th, we got that halt order. So everything has been frozen essentially since then. they can't bring them over and put them in because of the halt order.

So the conditions that we talked about that have not necessarily been met in terms of the color of the garage door, right?

Um, I think the verbal commitment is significant, is sufficient. Um, if you want to attach a condition, you know, they, I'm not sure what that condition would look like. What do you have in mind?

Well, I mean, just that there's no garage door there now. And you know, I don't know. When he puts it up, it could be different. I'm just trying to put it all in place because it's kind of a unique circumstance.

We could do a condition that construction be completed in a manner that matches the existing.

I want the garage door to match because if you see the house, the garage door on the house is similar to to the building. I want to kind of, you know, I want to keep that whole theme going with regards to the detached garage too. I wouldn't want it to have a contrast.

Okay. Any other questions from colleagues? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Seeing and hearing none, we'll address the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, yes. Whether the variance is substantial, yes, it's very substantial. Um, whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Um, I can't say with certainty whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. I would say no. Whether the property owner purchased the property without or with knowledge of the zoning restriction, I would say no because they decided to build this. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, no. Whether the spirit intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say no. With that, would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

Question's been called. Please call the roll with the condition.

I concur with the chair's assessment with the conditions and vote yes.

I likewise agree with the chair and vote yes.

Yes, the variances are granted.

BZA 26-049. Is this next door? Oh, did we already have something on France road? I mean, like, this is 7.

And a note, this 1 also has both special permit requests and a variance.

15 this 1.

Did we skip 14 or I'm just pulling something out of the air.

Yeah.

No, we did just did 14. Oh, okay. Still on my, okay. I'm sorry. I saw it twice. You're confusing me. I didn't call you all.

Well, we, there's like, we'll just call it for the record.

BZA two six dash zero five three or 1877 East 17th Avenue.

Easy 826-053 for 1877 East 17th Avenue is located. On the South side, East 17th Avenue, approximately 140 feet West of woodland Avenue. It's owned and manufacturing and located in the North central area commission. The 6.73 acre site is developed with a warehouse round uses include similar uses to the North and West and a cemetery to the South and East. The applicant proposes to allow two food trucks to remain on site overnight and is requesting a special permit for two portable buildings and a variance to reduce the front building setback from 40 feet to 10 feet for the two food trailers. This property was the subject of BZA 24-145, which allowed a food truck to remain on site permanently and to update the site plan of record to resolve code violations. Planning has no comment on the requested special permit as CGS does not address special permit requests. However, planning is supportive of the requested front building setback variance due to the mitigating factors that the setback area was shortened to accommodate a city-sponsored multi-use trail. CGS industrial design guidelines encourage landscaping, screening, and acoustic buffers for industrial and warehouse sites. staff note uh proposed tree plantings for screening of the truck and trailer parking therefore planning has no comment on the special permit request but is supportive of the building setback variance vision of traffic management has no comments north central area commission recommends approval of this request by a vote of seven to zero And staff can recommend approval of the special permit as the food trucks that wish to remain on site on a more permanent basis are supported by both the North Central Area Commission and the BZA can oppose conditions on a case-by-case basis. Further, the food trucks undergo annual inspections by both Division of Fire and Public Health Department for licensing. Staff is supportive of the requested variance because it will give the existing food trucks more visibility and it will be located in a manner that will not impact the use of the driveway.

You're on where they were. They're on the far left, right?

Yeah. The slides that I did earlier had a nice call out and a circle around it. But then as we were setting up the meeting, those slides were deleted.

So back and back.

Yeah. I had a nice zoomed in view.

All right. Got it. That was going to be my question.

Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you were sworn?

My name is Dulce Avila. No, I haven't been sworn.

Jack Reynolds, and I have not been sworn.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Who's going to go? Well, let me stop. The vote, just for clarity, was for both the special permit, presumably, as well as the variance with the area commission. You have the recommendation of the area commission as well as city staff. Do you have any additional comments that you'd like to share for your application for the special permit?

We didn't answer any questions. Dulce operated or started the operation about, oh, you all voted back in 2005 when she started her operation. It has been very successful.

2005? 2025. 2025. None of us did that.

2025. Sorry about that. And it has been a very successful operation. And so the second trailer is going to be a dessert trailer. And so they will operate in tandem. And so, again, this area. It's kind of a food desert and so this gives an opportunity for neighbors and other users of the facilities in the neighborhood to get something to eat. And so dessert is obviously a good way to go. And, uh, we need the variance for the setback is staff indicated, uh, city came in and bought a lot of right of way to install multi purpose, uh, trail that runs along the front of E, 17, uh, aqua science location. So we feel that the 10 foot setback is adequate, given that there is an awful lot of right of way between that 10 feet and the actual street along 17th Avenue.

OK, thank you so much.

Any questions or comments from my colleagues? No.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, as it pertains to 3389.12, special permit, to grant special permits for uses listed in Chapter 3389, where it's shown that the special use can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without substantial impairment of the general purpose and intent of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood. With that, would someone like to call the question?

I will call the question.

Question's been called. Please call the roll.

Ms. Agelhoff?

I believe the applicant satisfies the requirement for the special permit and vote in favor.

Mr. Malacca? I concur as well and vote yes. Chair Jones?

Yes. The special permit is granted and approved. As it pertains to 3363.27B1, Excuse me, B, I'll review the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Yes, for certain. Whether the variance is substantial. i think 40 feet to 10 feet is a little substantial but not unrealistic whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantial substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance no whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services no whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction she does not own the property but I would say no. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, I would say no. Whether the spirit and intent of the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say yes. With that, I'll call the question. Or will someone call the question?

I'll call the question. I'll occur with the chair's assessment and vote yes.

Likewise, concur with the chair and vote yes.