Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables setback and landscaping variances for 104 West 20th Avenue, seeks landscaping plan
Summary
The Board of Adjustments voted to table a request by a property owner at 104 West 20th Avenue for variances to setback and landscaping/tree preservation requirements so the owner can present a detailed landscape plan at a future meeting.
The City of Covington Board of Adjustments voted to table a variance application for the property at 104 West 20th Avenue to allow the applicant time to present a landscaping plan for staff review.
The request, filed as case number 25‑01‑02, sought relief from multiple provisions in Appendix B of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, including CN (neighborhood commercial) performance setback rules and multiple landscaping and street‑planting requirements. Petitioner representatives told the board the existing convenience store and canopy occupy locations where compliance would require demolition or removal of tanks and driveways and could threaten foundations. The applicant also said the site has been out of operation long enough that some grandfathering claims were not available.
Why it matters: The applicant seeks to renovate and reactivate a derelict convenience‑store site; the board must weigh public‑safety and environmental concerns about underground tanks and the city’s landscaping and buffering standards. The petitioner said removing structures to meet the strict setbacks could adversely affect foundations and could disturb historic tank beds.
Architect Joseph Richard, representing the project, explained demolition to meet a five‑foot rear setback could damage foundational elements near the property line and that the tank bed raised environmental risks: “Anytime that we you disturb a tank bed, there's a potential for a leak or some kind of environmental hazard.” He said DEQ tests of the tanks were completed after the current owner purchased the property and that the tanks had been closed out and tested.
Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives, including closing one driveway, adding landscape equivalency, and relocating parking and dumpster areas. One commissioner suggested the applicant could reconfigure parking and add additional landscaping to hide service areas; the applicant agreed to consider shifting parking and to submit a landscape plan.
The board’s motion to table the variances until the next meeting so staff could review the owner’s landscape plan passed on a 5–0 roll call (Butler — yes; Gilley — yes; Williams — yes; Lucas — yes; Romage — yes).
No final variance decision was made; the transcript records the board’s action as tabling the item pending a landscape plan to be presented at a subsequent hearing.
