Beavercreek zoning board denies Daleys’ appeal over expanded driveway surface

The Beavercreek Board of Zoning Appeals on an administrative appeal filed by Sean and Andrea Daley denied the Daleys’ challenge to a notice of violation, finding the expanded driveway at 2187 Vanoss Drive did not meet the city’s definition of an “improved surface.” The board voted to deny the appeal in a roll-call vote that recorded four yes votes and no negatives; one member was excused.

The decision matters for homeowners because the board’s ruling treats recycled asphalt “millings” as a material similar to gravel and not equivalent to the asphalt concrete or concrete the Beavercreek zoning code requires when a driveway area is expanded. That interpretation limits the use of milled or crushed materials for driveway expansions without paving.

Planning staff presented the case as an administrative appeal of a notice of violation issued after a complaint and inspection. Planning staff member Matt Funk told the board the city received a complaint on April 17 and inspected the property on April 18; staff issued a notice of violation later in April and a second notice on May 23, and the applicants filed an administrative appeal on May 27. Funk described the code’s requirement that a newly constructed or expanded driveway be an “improved surface” and contrasted that requirement with the properties of recycled asphalt millings. He told the board the city’s definition of improved surface lists Portland cement concrete, bituminous (asphalt) concrete, or solid brick paver surface and that millings are a reclaimed, granular product that does not create a continuous hot‑laid pavement.

Sean Daley, the property owner, told the board the surface on the driveway is “bituminous asphalt” and said the material is “bound together” and “as hard of product as some of your streets.” Daley said the driveway work took place in spring and that he had not previously been told an inspection or permit would be required for the expansion. Several neighbors spoke in favor of the Daleys; Joe Kittle said, “The driveway, looks fine,” and other residents described the home and driveway as well maintained.

Jeff Wohmert, public service director and city engineer for Beavercreek, testified that by his experience the material in the posted photos appears to be asphalt millings or recycled asphalt and said that product functions like a gravel substitute rather than a hot‑laid asphalt pavement. “In my opinion, it does not,” he said, when asked whether the material met the code’s definition of a continuous, permanent hard surface.

A member of the city legal staff read the zoning definition the board must apply: improved surface is “a permanent and continuous hard surface constructed of either one or more of the following: Portland cement concrete, bituminous (asphalt) concrete, or a solid brick paver surface,” excluding grass pavers. Counsel told the board that if the board were to accept millings as equivalent to asphalt concrete it could create inconsistent future interpretations of the code and permit similar crushed products to satisfy the improved‑surface requirement.

After discussion, a motion to deny the administrative appeal was made and seconded. The roll call recorded yes votes from four members (Mister Raider; Miss Vest; Miss Barhorst; Mister Espin); the previously excused member was Mister Roach. The motion denied the appeal, which leaves the notice of violation in place and preserves staff’s position that the driveway expansion must be brought into compliance with the zoning code; staff indicated they would continue to work with the property owners on compliance.

The board’s decision applies to the condition of the driveway as it existed at the time of the inspection and notices. The applicants may pursue whatever further administrative or legal remedies are available under the city code, and the record shows the dispute centers on whether a cold‑applied or recycled asphalt product creates the continuous, engineered surface the zoning definition requires.