Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Driveway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves driveway-width variance for Emmanuel Tembo at 800 Langford Drive
Summary
The Bowling Green Zoning Board of Appeals on April 8 approved a variance allowing an 8½-by-27-foot driveway extension at 800 Langford Drive that is 4½ feet wider than code limits, citing parking constraints and minimal neighborhood impact.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Driveway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bowling Green — The Zoning Board of Appeals voted April 8 to approve a variance allowing an 8½-by-27-foot driveway extension at 800 Langford Drive that exceeds the code-linked maximum by 4½ feet.
The board’s city planning director told members the applicant’s existing drive measured 17 feet, and the requested extension would bring the total width to about 26½ feet, exceeding the allowable width tied to the property’s 22-foot garage. No letters opposing the request were reported; required notices were posted and mailed.
“I own 4 cars, and sometimes I have to park them on the street,” applicant Emmanuel Tembo said when asked to explain the hardship that led to the request. He told the board that new nearby houses brought more work vans and on-street parking pressure.
Board members asked whether the change would create pedestrian-safety problems. Tembo said widening the drive would reduce instances where parked cars block the sidewalk and force pedestrians to walk around vehicles. The planning director confirmed that the original permit envisioned a driveway extension to the garage edge and that a later change led to this formal variance request.
Several board members said the requested widening was modest and would not change neighborhood character. After discussion, Jay Sockman moved to approve the variance and Jeff Crawford seconded. The board called the roll and recorded unanimous yes votes from the members present; the chair told the applicant to check with the planning department to pick up his permit.
The board approved the variance under the practical-difficulties standard described at the start of the hearing and noted that no procedural notice requirements were outstanding. The applicant may appeal the board’s decision to the Wood County Court of Common Pleas if he or others wish to contest it.
The meeting continued with the next agenda item.

