Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA roundup: group home approved; chickens approved; several variances continued or denied
Summary
At its March 26 meeting the Board approved a group‑home variance (limited to three tenants) and a backyard‑hen variance (hens only), denied an unattended Game of Homes application, and continued multiple commercial and accessory‑structure variance requests after split votes.
The Delaware County Board of Zoning Appeals heard a full docket on March 26 and reached several outcomes and holds.
What passed • BZA07‑26 (group home at East 22nd Street): Approved with conditions limiting occupancy to three adults and requiring building‑code review (motion carried in roll call as official action). • BZA09‑26 (Heather D. Jones — hens and setback): Approved with conditions limiting birds to hens (no roosters) and making the variance nontransferable (applicant‑only).
Denials and continuations • BZA05‑26 (Game of Homes LLC — two dwellings in single‑family zone): The applicant failed to appear for a second consecutive hearing; the board voted 5–0 to deny the request for failure to prosecute the application. • BZA04‑26 (McDonald’s / Pegasus Future 2 LLC — pole sign request): Applicant reduced request from 45 ft to 20 ft; proponent testimony favored the reduced height. Roll call was split (three yes, two no) and did not reach the board’s threshold for official action, so the case is continued to the April 30 meeting. • BZA10‑26 (Flower Bin Inc./Small Sliders — restaurant variances on McGalliard Road): Applicant presented multiple façade, loading and landscaping variances; roll call split 3–2 and the board continued the case to the next meeting for further review and updated site plan submission. • BZA02‑26, BZA13‑26 and other accessory‑structure height/size requests: Several such cases produced split roll‑call votes (three yes, two no), and the board continued the items to allow applicants to provide clearer scaled plans, surveys or building details.
Why some items were continued Board staff and several residents highlighted incomplete or inconsistent plan materials, potential right‑of‑way encroachment issues (which may fall to the county commissioners), and the need for photographic overlays or surveys; when roll call produced a narrow split, the board generally elected to continue items rather than issue final determinations.
Next steps Most continued cases were scheduled for the BZA’s next meeting on April 30 at 6 p.m. in the same hearing room. Staff will provide applicants and interested parties with guidance on filing scaled plans, updated site surveys and building‑permit coordination with the building commissioner.
