The Macedonia Board of Zoning and Building Code Appeals on Nov. 19 continued a request by property owner Dr. Alabadi to reduce the front setback at 1011 East Aurora Road from the 20 feet required by city code to about 10 feet 8 inches, a variance of 9 feet 4 inches, to allow parking and enclosure of four former drive‑through lanes.

Attorney Jeff Snell, representing the applicant, told the board the property — a former Huntington Bank building — was purchased in 2017 and that a 2018 planning commission approval had expired when the owner did not start construction. Snell said the owner returned in 2021 and was told the project now requires an area‑setback variance. Snell described the situation as a practical‑difficulty issue: the existing building footprint and site features make it infeasible to move the structure back to meet the 20‑foot setback.

Brian Smith, the applicant’s commercial realtor, described multi‑year efforts to market the space and cited a consultant report from August 2023 that said prospective tenants — including a financial‑services firm — were discouraged because customers would need to walk roughly 200 feet from the rear parking to a front entrance. "That's a chicken‑and‑egg problem," Snell said of the difficulty of finding a tenant before proving front access and, separately, securing a variance to provide that access.

Under the applicant’s plan, the enclosure of the drive‑through area would create about 4,000 square feet of leasable space and about 18 head‑in parking spaces in front of the building, one of which would be designated accessible. The applicant provided parcel maps and photographs to show several neighboring properties in the B‑2 district that do not meet the 20‑foot setback and cited a 2013 variance granted for a nearby grocery site as precedent.

Board members and staff pressed the applicant on alternate layouts and operational constraints. Members asked whether additional accessible spaces could be provided, whether customers could reasonably be expected to use rear parking, and whether shared‑parking easements with adjacent property owners had been pursued. The applicant and realtor said adjacent parking is committed to other tenants and that utilities and HVAC units are located at the rear, complicating a rear entrance or reconfiguration.

Several board members suggested design alternatives intended to reduce the size of any variance: angled parking (which can reduce frontage impact), a different head‑in layout, or modest revisions to landscaping and curb placement. Board member comments emphasized the "minimum necessary" standard in the city's practical‑difficulty analysis and urged the applicant to show plans that minimize intrusion into the required setback.

After discussion the board voted to require scaled, dimensioned drawings comparing angled parking and straight head‑in parking and continued the hearing to the board’s Dec. 17 meeting. The board set a submittal deadline for the requested information of Dec. 10. The motion to continue, and to request the additional documentation, carried on the recorded voice vote.

The board also recorded routine business: a motion to accept the minutes of the previous meeting was moved and seconded earlier in the session. The hearing was recessed to the Dec. 17 meeting after the board and applicant agreed to try to reconcile a design that provides front parking while minimizing the setback requested.

What happens next: the applicant will prepare and file scaled plans showing the angled‑parking alternative (and other options) by Dec. 10 so the board and the planning commission can review whether a smaller variance or other conditions would meet the city's standards. The board will take the case up again on Dec. 17.