Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscaping Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants landscaping relief, denies requested parking‑screening variance for State Road 933 lot plan
Summary
For a proposed parking lot at 50860 State Road 933, the board approved variances to reduce front‑line shade trees and to waive type‑2 landscaping along some lot lines but denied the requested omission of parking‑area screening; the board said fencing and shrub hedges could be required as conditions.
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 14 granted two variances and denied a third for a proposed parking lot at 50860 State Road 933.
APC staff said the narrow (~75‑ft) lot, existing building violations and lack of public sewer made full redevelopment difficult; the petitioner proposed demolishing existing buildings and creating a parking lot, asking for relief from tree spacing (providing one shade tree instead of the ordinance spacing), from type‑2 landscaping along residentially abutting lot lines, and from parking‑area screening requirements. Staff recommended approval of the variances, noting the petitioner would install fencing to screen adjacent residences.
Jim Quercus, the project architect, explained the two‑stage approach: construct a parking lot now and consider a small building in the future once funding is available. Board members questioned the specifics of fencing, shrub screening, and whether vegetation would be removed; the project team confirmed a fence would be installed and that existing vegetation in poor condition would likely be removed.
Joe Bellman moved to approve variance 1 (shade tree reduction) and variance 2 (type‑2 landscaping relief) and to deny variance 3 (requested relief from parking‑area screening). Donnie Ritzma seconded. Voting recorded in the transcript shows unanimous approval for the motion as stated. The board will issue written findings describing the decision and any conditions.
The decision allows the owner to proceed with a parking‑lot plan subject to required permits and any conditions the board or staff attach in the written findings; the denied parking‑screening request means the petitioner must meet screening requirements at the time of permitting or propose an approved alternative such as a hedge or fence.
