Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Appeal Variance 496 Grama topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies administrative appeal from neighbors challenging prior variance for 496 Grama Street
Summary
The Board of Adjustments dismissed an administrative appeal by adjacent property owners Jeffrey and Laura Alford, who argued a prior variance hearing was scheduled after filing deadlines and based on an incomplete application; the board found it lacked jurisdiction and the appellants lacked standing to overturn the prior final decision.
The Danville Board of Adjustments voted unanimously to deny an administrative appeal from adjacent property owners Jeffrey and Laura Alford challenging a previously granted side-yard-setback variance for 496 Grama Street.
Appellants' attorney Melanie Thornberry argued the original variance application was administratively incomplete and was filed and scheduled after the published filing deadline. Thornberry cited the board's 2025 meeting calendar and a zoning provision requiring variance applications to include an accurate boundary survey prepared and stamped by a licensed Kentucky surveyor. "The word shall is mandatory, not permissive or directory," Thornberry said, arguing the application lacked required survey elements, did not show required off-street parking information for a duplex, and listed incorrect or missing property-owner information.
Counsel for the property owner, Johnny Gifford, contended the board had no jurisdiction to hear the administrative appeal of its own final decision and said statute vests review of final administrative zoning decisions in the circuit court. Gifford said standing for such appeals is limited and that the correct forum for challenging a final board decision is Boyle County Circuit Court, not the board itself: "The only party that even has authority in standing to be able to then appeal that is the applicant," he said.
Laura Alford told the board she and other adjacent owners did not receive mailed notice of the original variance hearing and said they first learned of the prior hearing when they observed construction onsite. Planning staff Mikayla Jerry replied that the office mailed notices by standard USPS and ran the required newspaper advertisement and that some envelopes returned as undeliverable; staff said mailings used the addresses on file with the property valuation administrator.
After deliberation, a board member moved to deny the appeal on procedural and standing grounds; the motion carried unanimously with the board concluding it did not have jurisdiction to overturn a prior final decision and that the appellants lacked the standing required to pursue the remedy before the board. The board's motion denied the appeal and left the avenue of relief (if any) to the courts as provided by state statute.
