Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Driveway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request to legalize 53-foot driveway at 2703 Cardigan Road
Summary
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 voted unanimously to deny a variance that would have allowed a 53-foot-wide parking area at a single-family residence in Pike Township, citing enforcement history and neighborhood opposition.
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 denied a petition to allow a 53-foot-wide parking area at 2703 Cardigan Road, a single-family property in Pike Township, the board ruled at its public hearing.
The board’s decision blocks a request that would have permitted a second driveway and a widened parking area behind a fenced rear yard. Staff and neighborhood representatives argued the gravel drive and rear-yard parking had been associated with past commercial activity and repeated enforcement complaints.
Staff member, Division of Planning, summarized staff’s recommendation during the hearing: “We are recommending denial of this request for a petition that would involve the placement of a second driveway parallel to the location of their existing paved driveway that would result in a 53 foot width and lead to a rear yard area with potential commercial function.” Staff noted the property is zoned D3, is surrounded by single-family residences, and has a 2022 violation case, VIO22-007641, opened for the parking-area width.
Carrie Michael Manders, chair of the Crooked Creek Community Land Use Committee and speaking for the Pike Township Residents Association (PTRA), told the board the neighborhood opposed the petition. “This has been an ongoing issue since 02/2007. It’s time for this property owner to be a good neighbor and stop this activity,” Manders said, urging denial.
Arnoldo Gonzalez Vasquez, appearing as the petitioner’s representative, and George Gonzalez Vasquez, who gave identifying information for the record, said the wider parking area was already built, that neighbors had provided letters of support, and that the property owner had moved his business to another town. In a closing statement, the petitioner’s representative said removing the gravel drive would be costly and that commitments were offered to the neighborhood, including not operating a business at the residence.
Board members questioned whether a practical difficulty had been demonstrated and pressed staff and the petitioner about a history of complaints, the presence of commercial vehicles in aerial photos and on-site photographs, and whether the applicant had applied for required permits. Staff told the board that aerial imagery suggested the gravel drive and rear-yard structures were in place around 2014–2015, that a box truck appeared during a staff site visit on Feb. 13, and that the city’s records show 13 Mayor’s Action Center complaints between 2016 and the present related to the property.
After discussion, the board recorded the votes as follows: Tom Barnes — No; Peter Nelson — No; Jennifer Witt — No. The variance request was not granted.
The denial means the existing gravel drive and rear-yard parking area remain unauthorized under the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance; staff noted that enforcement action remains possible if commercial activity recurs.
