Opinion ID: 6498498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The BZA Grants Variances for 8383 Keister Road

Text: Although residential property surrounds the parcel, 8383 Keister Road (the Property) is and throughout this dispute has been zoned as part of a B-2 Community Business District. Patrick Brooks, Angela Brooks, Tonja Back, and James Back—several plaintiffs in this case—live on adjacent properties. Connor Webner, Michael Tinch, Shannon Tinch, Karen Frank, and Bret Frank—the remaining plaintiffs—live close to a block away from the Property. In 2013, the Property’s owner, Alan Daniel, transferred it to his son, Todd Daniel, and simultaneously took a mortgage interest as the mortgagee. The Residents allege that both men retained these proprietary interests in the land until at least February 16, 2021. In November 2020, CD DG Germantown, LLC (Germantown) contracted to build a Dollar General store on the Property and entered a lease agreement with a tenant to operate the proposed store. Included in the agreement was a liquidated damages provision that required Germantown to pay $897.60 for each day after January 13, 2022, that the Property was not delivered to the tenant. Developing the land to be suitable for the proposed Dollar General, however, required adjustments to the applicable zoning requirements. Germantown sought five variances from the BZA: (1) a reduction in the number of parking spots required; (2) an allowance for more than ten percent of the parking to be in front of the store; (3) the waiver of a setback requirement for the -4- No. 21-4129, Brooks, et al. v. Butler County, Ohio, et al. parking lot; (4) the waiver of a setback requirement for the front of the store; and (5) permission to erect a privacy fence in lieu of required landscaping. The adjacent landowners received notice through the mail, and a local paper also carried notice of the hearing and proposed variances. Alan Daniel, despite having a financial interest in 8383 Keister Road, played a key role in determining whether Germantown would receive the variances. At the time, he was one member of the five-member BZA. The BZA’s bylaws require a quorum of three to approve variances, Zoning Resolution § 26.22, and Daniel was the necessary third board member on the evening that the BZA considered Germantown’s application, as two other members were absent. Rather than recuse himself, Daniel voted along with the other two present board members in favor of granting the variances. The Residents allege that Daniel still held a mortgage interest on the property at the time. No one at the hearing objected to Daniel’s participation, nor did anyone object to Germantown’s application. None of the Residents attended the BZA meeting or submitted comments on the proposal.