Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Compliance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Property owner requests enforcement or repeal of 1987 ordinance for 2915 Grove Avenue warehouse plan

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A representative for Floyd Grove Shepherd LLC asked the committee to enforce a 1987 special-use permit ordinance that he said limits development at 2915 Grove Avenue to parking and landscaping, and to add the topic to a future agenda if the city intends not to enforce it.

Thomas Courtney, representing Floyd Grove Shepherd LLC, told the Land Use Committee that plans for a storage warehouse at 2915 Grove Avenue conflict with a 1987 special-use permit ordinance that, he said, allows only parking and landscaping improvements on the parcel.

Courtney said the parcel’s earlier code case (038774) was enforced by the zoning administrator in 2020 and that the new plan—he described it as a 12,000-square-foot warehouse—exceeds what the ordinance permits. He requested that the committee either direct enforcement of ordinance 19 87 1 93 1 85 or place an item on a future agenda to formally repeal the ordinance through legislative process and provide public input.

Courtney asked that the committee chair move that enforcement or repeal of ordinance 19 87 1 93 1 85 be included in an upcoming committee agenda for discussion and action. The committee did not take action on the request during the meeting; Courtney’s remarks were recorded during the public comment period and the committee proceeded to other business.

Why it matters: Courtney framed the matter as both a zoning-compliance issue and a governance question—saying that if the city no longer intends the ordinance to apply it should repeal the ordinance with public notice rather than apply it selectively.

The committee did not schedule enforcement or a repeal vote during this meeting; the request stands as public comment and a proposed follow-up item.