Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance to keep front-yard hockey rink in place

The New Albany Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-1 on March 23 to deny a variance that would have allowed a hockey rink to remain in the front yard at 6528 Cedarbrook Drive.

Planning staff told the board the rink was installed without a permit after an October 2025 complaint and is classified under the zoning code as a "recreational amenity," which the ordinance forbids in front yards. "The recreational amenity in question is a hockey rink that is highlighted in orange," planning staff said during the presentation, adding the rink sits "approximately 40 feet in front of the house and 50 feet from the Central College Road right of way." Staff also noted the corner-lot rule meant the property effectively has two front yards, constraining the buildable area.

The applicant, identified to the board as Matt Srossig, described the rink as a movable surface with sports tiles, no concrete footings and extension-cord-powered lights, and said the family had planted screening trees. "We planted 20 fast growing... and we bought 5 additional mature... that are 6 or 7 feet tall to plant along the side," Srossig said, adding that moving the rink would require renting equipment and might cost "probably $1,000 or $2,000" and be delayed until drier months.

Neighbors testified about sightlines and impacts. Jerry Coleman, who gave his address as 6516 Cedar Brook, said the rink affects views from patios and would be visible to some neighbors if relocated. Another neighbor, Nate Morris, asked about finish and screening and reported that some neighbors already preferred the rink's current location. Achilles Frosty, who also spoke, noted that the person who complained later said they preferred it left in place, but planning staff said a later change of heart by a complainant does not alter the zoning analysis.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant about visibility, the maturity and effectiveness of landscaping and the noise and lighting rules. Planning staff pointed to the town's noise ordinance for enforcement of loud speakers and described the allowable hours for amplified sound. Board members repeatedly raised concern about setting a precedent for corner lots that could allow recreational amenities to be sited prominently in front yards.

Chair moved to approve the variance; the motion failed on a roll-call vote, with one vote in favor and three against. Board members who voted no explained for the record that, under the ordinance's corner-lot measurement, the area is a front yard and that approving the variance would represent a substantial deviation from the zoning code and could create a difficult precedent. Several members said the owner could achieve compliance by relocating the rink behind the primary structure or into the blue area staff indicated on a site plan.

With the denial final, the board did not adopt a specific removal timeline on the record but discussed that reasonable steps to remedy a zoning violation are expected and that immediate removal may be impractical where moving equipment is constrained by wet ground and seasonality. Planning staff said they would review enforcement timelines and that neighbors may call the nonemergency line for noise complaints if necessary.

The meeting adjourned after the vote.