Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Parking Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board OKs front‑yard parking pad variance for Sand Ridge homeowner
Summary
The Bowling Green Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3–2 to grant a variance allowing a 25-by-35-foot parking pad in the front yard at 929 Sand Ridge Road, with board members citing safety and lack of neighborhood complaints while one member opposed on aesthetic grounds.
The Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Bowling Green on Wednesday approved a variance allowing a 25‑by‑35‑foot parking pad to be built in the front yard at 929 Sand Ridge Road.
The board granted the variance by roll call vote, with three members voting yes and two voting no. The board also instructed the applicant to follow up with the planning department to complete final permits.
City planning staff reviewed the application and told the board that Bowling Green’s zoning code (Article 4, section 150.72) generally prohibits off‑street parking in front yards. Heather, planning staff, explained the code’s definition of parking pads and said the applicant’s packet included aerials, sketches and a site notice. Heather told the board staff received no phone calls or letters from neighboring property owners and that public‑notice requirements had been met.
Applicant Nicholas Bolas told the board he had been renovating the home and requested the front‑yard pad to provide a turnaround so vehicles could drive forward onto Sand Ridge Road instead of backing into a blind curve. He said excavating next to the garage to add side‑yard parking would require extensive retaining walls, tree removal and greater expense. “The reason for the request is for additional parking and a turnaround area, which would allow us to then drive out onto the roadway opposed to back out onto the roadway,” Bolas said.
Board members discussed the zoning code’s aesthetic goals for keeping parking out of front yards and weighed that against Bolas’s safety argument. Chair Tim Emmerich and other members noted the curve on Sand Ridge Road and the applicant’s statement that there is no on‑street parking available. One board member said the request was substantial and voiced concern about adding concrete to a front yard; another member said safety concerns merited special consideration and suggested a smaller pad as a possible compromise. Bolas said he was open to compromise but preferred the 25‑by‑35 dimension to allow two parked cars and space for maneuvering.
After deliberation, the board approved the variance. Vote record: Jeff Crawford — yes; Julie Broadwell — no; Gerry (Jerry) Anderson — yes; Rod Noble — no; Tim Emmerich — yes. The motion to approve was recorded as granted. Planning staff advised Bolas to complete final paperwork at the planning department.
The case is an example of the board balancing recent zoning code updates that favor front‑yard aesthetics with property‑specific safety claims and site constraints.
