Oxford BZA approves lot‑coverage variance at 417–419 E. Withrow with parking‑block condition

The Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 28 granted a variance allowing a higher lot coverage than the R3MS zoning maximum at 417 and 419 East Withrow Street, with a condition that parking blocks be installed on the row of spaces closest to the structure.

The variance lets the property retain an existing rear parking configuration that staff said results in overall lot coverage above the 45% limit for alley‑access lots in the R3MS (Miles Square) district. City planner and GIS coordinator Zachary Moore told the board the average lot coverage across the district is "just a little bit below what the code maximum is of 45%," and that similarly sized lots often exceed the code limit.

Why it matters: The case pits the city’s numerical lot‑coverage standard against a long‑standing pattern of rear alley parking in the Mile Square and raises public‑safety questions after the city’s fire chief identified potential Ohio Fire Code concerns when the building permit and inspections were reviewed.

Moore told the BZA the property at 417–419 E. Withrow was built under a permit issued July 14, 2023, and passed its final building inspection on April 30, 2024, but a May 8, 2024 final zoning inspection found the rear parking "not being completed according to the approved plans." He said the lot is 60 feet wide and just over the 8,000 square feet minimum for a three‑family dwelling in R3MS, and that staff’s GIS land‑cover analysis shows an average district coverage of 43.74% and an 80th‑percentile coverage of roughly 53.73% for lots the same size as the subject parcel.

Applicant architect Scott Webb said the parking layout predates the current structure and that the building was "designed specifically to meet" fire‑safety visibility and access goals, with three distinct front entrances facing the street. Webb and the property owner’s attorney, Jack Grove, argued the rear pocket parking is common in the Mile Square, is typically dedicated to tenants rather than first‑come, first‑served public parking, and that removing paved spaces could worsen off‑site parking behaviors.

City staff and public‑safety officials raised separate points. Moore summarized that the fire chief’s memo and site photo indicate the proximity of parked cars to the rear face of the building may affect ladder placement and egress; the police chief also expressed concerns. Moore said those comments prompted a procedural change: the city will begin routing new multi‑family residential permits to the fire chief for review before construction.

The applicant sought to retain the rear parking area shown in recent aerial and drone photos; staff’s exhibit materials show the property previously had as many as 14 paved spaces and the submitted site plans reflect 12 spaces (two rows of six). Moore said the current covered surface on the lot measures about 54.8% under the submitted plan, exceeding the 45% limit and therefore requiring a variance.

Several board members asked whether the board should delay action until city council amends the code; Moore said planning commission has forwarded text amendments proposing higher allowable coverage in alley‑fronting areas and that changes are moving toward council. The board also discussed late supplemental materials submitted by the applicant; the board chose not to extend the hearing to review them and closed the record.

After deliberation the board voted to grant the variance and to accept staff’s findings on the decision criteria. The motion, as passed, included the condition that parking blocks (wheel stops) be installed on the row of parking spaces closest to the building to prevent vehicles from encroaching on the egress area. Roll call: Chair Russo — yes; Vice Chair Smith — yes; Member Desjorg — yes; Member Chaffin — no. The motion carried.

What’s next: The approval allows the existing rear parking layout to remain subject to the parking‑block condition and any required follow‑up to address the fire chief’s operational concerns. The city has changed its permit routing so future multi‑family residential permits will be sent to the fire chief for review earlier in the process.

Votes at a glance: BZA case BZA‑2024‑06417 (417 and 419 E. Withrow St.) — motion to grant lot‑coverage variance with condition (parking blocks installed on row nearest structure) — outcome: approved (3–1).