Chevy Chase Canyon residents oppose variance application due to zoning concerns

In a pivotal meeting on July 9, 2025, Glendale's Planning Hearing Officer addressed critical concerns surrounding a proposed variance application, with significant implications for local zoning regulations. The discussion highlighted the need for thorough review and expert consultation, particularly regarding structural integrity and traffic safety.

A key point of contention arose when a contractor revealed uncertainty about whether a structural engineer had reviewed the project plans. "I don't have something to show, yes, this was definitively shown to a structural engineer," the contractor admitted, raising questions about the adequacy of the documentation provided. This lack of clarity could impact the project's approval, as the officer emphasized that only evidence presented during the hearing would be considered.

The conversation shifted to the project's compliance with existing zoning laws, particularly concerning a retaining wall's height and the natural grade of the land. The officer noted that previous applications had indicated the front yard was backfilled, yet current drawings lacked essential details about the wall's specifications. "I didn't see any sections that showed the natural grade, the fill grade, and the retaining wall height," the officer pointed out, indicating a potential oversight in the application process.

Traffic safety also emerged as a significant issue. When asked if the project team consulted with traffic professionals, the response was candid: "We didn't think it was necessary." This dismissal of expert input raised eyebrows, especially given the city's commitment to designing streets for safety. The officer reminded the team of the importance of addressing visibility and hazard concerns, particularly in areas where traffic patterns could pose risks to pedestrians.

Community voices were also heard, with local resident Palma Vicente representing the Chevy Chase Associates. Vicente underscored the necessity of meeting all four criteria for variance approval, stating that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that strict adherence to the ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship. "Based on this finding alone, the requested variance may not be granted," she asserted, reinforcing the community's stance on maintaining zoning integrity.

As the meeting concluded, the implications of these discussions loomed large. The Planning Hearing Officer's insistence on thorough documentation and expert consultation signals a commitment to upholding safety and regulatory standards in Glendale, ensuring that any future developments align with the community's needs and safety protocols. The outcome of this variance application remains uncertain, but the emphasis on accountability and transparency is clear.