Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance request for 1823 German Street after neighborhood objections
Summary
After public testimony from neighborhood watch members about nuisance and safety concerns, the board voted unanimously to reject a variance application for 1823 German Street; the appellant and property owner did not appear to support the application.
A local zoning board denied an appeal seeking a variance for 1823 German Street after residents told the board an after‑hours club at that location would harm a residential neighborhood.
Ed Dawson moved to reject the variance, and the motion carried after a voice vote by board members. The board recorded votes to deny from Seibold, Dawson, Gungeon and Johnson, and the chair announced the motion to reject the appeal passed.
Neighborhood residents testified against the variance. Paul Gamble, speaking for the Central City Neighborhood Watch, said the block is predominantly residential and that prior after‑hours establishments on nearby streets had brought "illegal antisocial activity" and policing disturbances. "It's just not worth it to the residents in that area who are trying to live a quiet, peaceful life," Gamble said, urging the board to reject the appeal.
Another neighborhood watch member, David Filson, said he has lived in the area 18 years and described problems he had witnessed near a previous after‑hours club close to a park, saying a similar use at 1823 German Street would "spill over into the neighborhood" and could depress property values.
Board members and the board solicitor told the hearing the appellant had no clear legal interest in the property: there was no signed lease or a sale agreement signed by both parties, and the property owner, Bill Bucheri of Palmer Realty, told the board he would not attend. The board proceeded with the motion to deny the appeal in the appellant's absence and after hearing resident testimony.
The board closed public testimony and moved on with no further business; there were no indicated next steps for the applicant in the transcript.
The meeting adjourned following routine housekeeping items.
