Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Berea Board of Adjustments grants 9-foot rear-setback variance for 112 Bow Bridge Drive

Berea Board of Adjustments · June 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Berea Board of Adjustments approved a 9-foot dimensional variance for a covered porch at 112 Bow Bridge Drive after staff said the porch meets building-code separation requirements and the applicant presented signed neighbor and developer consent.

The Berea Board of Adjustments voted to grant a 9-foot dimensional variance for a covered porch at 112 Bow Bridge Drive during its meeting on June 24, 2026. The board moved and seconded the measure and the chair declared the motion granted.

City building inspector Brian Menescalco told the board that “112 Bow Bridge, they have a covered porch that is projecting 9 ft into the rear setback.” He said the site is in an R-1A zone with a required 25-foot rear setback, meaning the porch leaves about 15 feet to the property line, and noted there is a 5-foot drainage easement at the rear of the lot. Menescalco also stated the existing porch and roof meet building-code minimums, that sight lines are clear and that the property exceeds the minimum required fire separation distance.

Valerie Holmes, an attorney with Luxon & Holmes representing Billy Todd Builders LLC, told the board the encroachment resulted from a framing error while the builder was working on several houses at once and that the builder “self-reported to the city that this has happened.” Holmes said the developer, KJC, and the immediate neighbor at 110 Bow Bridge provided signed notes indicating they did not object to the variance.

A board member moved to approve a 9-foot variance at the rear setback for the property, saying the variance would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, would not alter the essential character of the vicinity, and would not cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. Another member seconded the motion; the chair declared the motion granted.

Board members and staff also reminded the panel that variances apply to the property and run with the land, and cited LMDO Section 404.2 criteria the board uses to evaluate such requests. The board did not record member-by-name votes in the public remarks on the record during the motion and the meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.