Hearing examiner recommends approval of Palermo Gardens commitment modifications, grants variance with conditions

The hearing examiner recommended approval Thursday of a petition to modify commitments for Palermo Gardens subdivision (2025 CAP 841) and granted CVR 841, a companion variance request, subject to written findings and commitments agreed with the Franklin Township Civic League.

The recommendation was made after petitioner representatives and neighborhood residents debated whether to allow play equipment, change a homeowners-association maintenance requirement from “shall” to “may,” and permit larger front-loaded garages than allowed under current code. Hearing Examiner Bridal Tuohy said she would place CAP 841 “on the agenda of the Metropolitan Development Commission on October 1,” and granted CVR 841 “subject to the findings of fact,” contingent on commitments agreed with the civic league.

The petition, brought by developer Ryan Homes and represented at the hearing by attorney Joe Calderon and Ryan Homes’ Mike Lewis, would reconfigure undeveloped lots from duplex product to single-family homes and modify two recorded commitments. Petitioners asked to remove a commitment that bans playground equipment and to change commitment language so the homeowners association may, rather than shall, provide common-area maintenance services. They also requested a variance to allow front-loaded garages comprising up to 77.4% of the front facade where the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance permits a maximum of 30%.

Resident Daja Toler opposed the changes during public comment, saying the maintenance assurances and original “maintenance-free” character of the subdivision were a central reason families moved there. “That promise was central to why I chose this neighborhood as a safe and quiet place for my mother to live,” Toler said, adding concerns about children accessing the neighborhood pond, increased traffic, and potential impacts on property values.

Staff told the hearing examiner it had “no recommendation on the modification of those commitments because staff was not involved when those were negotiated,” but raised concerns about the variance. Kathleen, a planning staff member, said staff is concerned the larger garage facades could increase pedestrian–vehicle conflicts at driveway crossings and would alter the intended visual balance between living space and garage. Calderon told the examiner the existing lots and installed infrastructure make side-load garages impractical; he said many of the current duplex units have two-car garages that visually dominate the facades already.

Petitioners offered three additional, negotiated promises to current homeowners: a masonry or stone wainscot on the front of each new home, an option for current owners to add a windowed top panel on their garage doors, and a freeze on HOA dues for current owners through 2027. Calderon said five of six current owners previously accepted those terms in private negotiation; the examiner said those private commitments would be treated as required conditions for approval. The Franklin Township Civic League submitted a letter asking that negotiated agreements be honored; the hearing examiner made approval contingent on adherence to the civic-league agreement.

After hearing testimony and rebuttal from petitioners, the hearing examiner concluded the situation presented “a practical difficulty” because many lots are 40 feet wide and the ordinance’s 30% facade limit would not permit a functional two-car garage. Tuohy recommended approval of the plat modification and granted the variance, subject to the findings of fact and the commitments agreed to with the Franklin Township Civic League.

The petitions will proceed to the Metropolitan Development Commission for final action at its October 1 meeting. The hearing record includes letters both in support (including the Franklin Township Civic League’s partial support contingent on negotiated promises) and in opposition raising safety, uniformity, and property-value concerns.

Less contentious elements of the petition — including a request to remove the playground prohibition — drew little opposition; the most contested issues were the maintenance language and the garage variance, which staff and remonstrators pressed on during the hearing.

The hearing examiner’s recommendation and the granted variance do not take legal effect until final MDC action and any applicable appeal periods have passed.