Neighbors press New Albany board over missing screening at proposed food‑pantry parking; ARB tables recommendation

The New Albany Architectural Review Board on Jan. 12 tabled consideration of a final development plan for the Healthy New Albany Food Pantry after residents raised longstanding concerns about missing screening between a proposed parking lot and nearby homes.

Resident Francis Strahler, who lives on James River Road, told the board the application provides no headlight screening along the south boundary and cited the zoning text and past meeting minutes, saying earlier approvals required a ‘‘3.5 foot evergreen hedge or masonry wall’’ to shield nearby residences. ‘‘The headlight screening is required,’’ Strahler said, urging the church and applicant to withdraw or redesign the plan to honor commitments from 2011.

Staff reminded the board that the ARB’s jurisdiction is limited to architectural appropriateness and on‑site design, not off‑site traffic or noise. City staff and counsel also said the relevant zoning text includes an exception tied to a 120‑foot electrical easement on the south side of the parcel. ‘‘Due to the presence of an electrical easement on the south side of the PUD, no landscape or any [landscape] shall be required along this boundary,’’ a city staff member said, noting AEP (the easement holder) now prohibits woody vegetation in easements in many cases.

Neighbors and several board members pressed for a practical solution. City staff offered a compromise of working with the applicant and the city landscape architect to identify screening in adjacent James River Park (on city property) if the parties agree, while some trustees warned that requiring landscaping within an easement could be futile if the easement owner removes plantings.

Todd Parker, the applicant’s architect, said the team is willing to work with the city and noted operational limits for the food pantry (open evenings only on certain nights), but also said some site constraints limit alternate layouts. ‘‘We would screen this if we could,’’ he said.

After extended discussion about enforcement of earlier commitments, easement constraints and possible park‑based screening, a motion to table the ARB recommendation was made, seconded and passed by the board to allow staff, the applicant and neighbors more time to develop workable options before the matter moves to the Planning Commission.

What happens next: Tabling pauses the ARB recommendation; staff and the applicant said they will pursue coordination with the city landscape architect and explore whether screening on adjacent public property or a redesign can address neighbors’ concerns before the Planning Commission considers the final development plan.

—Reporting in this article is based entirely on statements made during the Jan. 12 New Albany Architectural Review Board meeting and does not infer facts beyond the transcript. The board’s legal counsel and staff repeatedly noted that easement language controls what may be installed within the easement, and neighbors referenced meeting minutes and zoning text from 2011 when arguing screening was required.