Dayton BZA denies Tazel LLC request to expand parking lot, rejects fence and tree variances

The City of Dayton Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a request by Tazel LLC to expand a restricted parking lot at 531 N. Main/28 W. Babbitt, concluding the applicant did not meet standards required for variances.

Planning staff presented the case for BZA Case PLN2025-00393, telling the board the proposal sought three variances: to reduce front and rear setbacks for the parking area to zero feet, to allow a chain-link fence within the front setback, and to reduce street trees along W. Babbitt Street to zero. Staff contact Elizabeth Dakin said the removal of the existing green buffer and placement of a fence closer to the street left the site visible from the right-of-way; she reported 22 letters and emails from neighbors opposing the request and recommended denial because the application did not meet the standards for variances.

Applicant Matthew Hermis, representing Tazel LLC, acknowledged he removed two Crabtree trees from the parcel because he did not think they ‘‘looked good’’ and said he installed evergreens along the property line. Hermis told the board he was willing to install a six-foot fence or make other mitigations if required. Resident David Diven said the use was quiet and suggested conditions such as moving gravel back and installing a new fence could make approval possible.

Multiple nearby residents opposed the request, saying removal of the green buffer harmed neighborhood aesthetics and historic character and could depress property values. Speakers who registered opposition cited the historic-district context, loss of screening between commercial and residential uses, and potential precedent if the variance were allowed. Several residents urged restoration of the parcel’s former greenspace and mitigation measures if any changes were permitted.

After questioning the applicant and staff about the prior fence location, fence material, and code-compliant alternatives, the board deliberated. By motion of Chris Lewis, seconded by Joe Shaw, the board determined there was not a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial evidence under R.C.G.O. §150.120.10(D)(1) to grant the variances and voted to deny the application. The vote was recorded as: Tim Bement — yes; Joe Shaw — yes; Diana Graham — yes; Jacquelyne Patterson — excused; Patrick Martin — yes; Joe Craig — yes; Chris Lewis — yes.

The denial leaves the property in its current nonconforming condition unless the owner pursues other code-compliant options or a revised application. The meeting adjourned at 6:11 P.M.; minutes were approved by the board on March 24, 2026.