Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Specific Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission and council deny specific-use permit to allow duplex at 5450 Concord Road after neighbors object
Summary
A request to allow a duplex at 5450 Concord Road — retrofitting a property previously converted into four units — was denied after public comment raised safety, parking and permitting concerns; the commission voted to deny the specific-use permit.
SDB Development sought a specific-use permit to allow a duplex at 5450 Concord Road in a residential single-family zoning district. Staff said a stop-work order had been issued in July 2024 after an inspection found repairs performed without a permit and that the two-story residence had been converted into four dwelling units. The applicant asked to reduce the number of units from four to two to bring the property into compliance with zoning.
Staff recommended approval with three conditions: obtain all necessary permits and complete required city inspections; place no permanent structures or appurtenances within the easement property; and ensure construction plans comply with applicable fire and building code requirements. Staff said 17 notices were sent, and two responses opposed the request citing noise, garbage, safety, disabled vehicles and lack of front or backyard space.
Contractor Eleuterio Baran, who identified himself as the contractor on the project, said he had pulled permits for exterior work and intended to "get it back to where the new owners can, you know, rent the property out." Baran said interior work predated his contract and that he would pull needed permits and work with city inspectors. Neighbors who spoke in opposition described safety and quality-of-life concerns: Francis Bowman, who lives across the street, said, "It shouldn't be there," and warned of noise, on‑street parking and fire risk; another nearby resident, Jonathan Finch, said shared transformer and electrical issues cause lights to dim when air conditioners operate and asked whether the building had a certificate of occupancy.
Two motions to approve the specific-use permit failed for lack of a second. Commissioners then moved to deny the permit; a motion to deny carried on a voice vote and the chair declared "the ayes have it." The record shows the denial was made after the public comment period and discussion about whether the owner could return the property to a single-family home by right. Commissioners noted that denial leaves the property able to be used as a single‑family residence under existing zoning, subject to building-code requirements and inspections.
No permit approvals or conversions were authorized by the decision; the owner or contractor may reapply or choose to pursue single-family use consistent with zoning and the building code.
