Summit challenges recent River's Gate zoning decision

Attorneys for the Summit at Coates Run apartments have filed an administrative appeal of a zoning variance granted to another apartment development being planned near Ohio University's South Green.

On Oct. 9, in a filing in Athens County Common Pleas Court naming the city of Athens, its code director, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, Coates Run LLC attorney B. Lafe Metz requested the court reverse a variance granted in September for the construction of the River Gate apartment building.

The proposed $15 million, 3.5-story apartment building is slated to replace the building that now contains the New Life Assembly of God church at 10 S. Green Drive. That development is currently undergoing Title 41 city site planning review.

The variance in question was actually the second variance requested by River Gate developers, Homestead U, LLC, out of Columbus, who also own the nearby River Park (formerly Lakeview Apartments) and River's Edge student apartment complexes.

Homestead U originally requested a variance allowing a 4.5-story building, with 82 percent lot coverage, which refers to the footprint a building makes on its property site. Maximum lot coverage allowed by city code is 60 percent.

That variance was rejected. After redrawing plans, Homestead U brought the proposed building down to 3.5-stories, matching code requirements, and requested a variance for 77.5 percent lot coverage. That variance was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Both variance hearings were attended by Coates Run property manager Pam Wells, who objected to the variance requests each time, pointing to the Summit complex being required to satisfy code regulations that Homestead was seeking to skirt.

Metz, Coates Run's attorney, argued in the appeal of the zoning board's decision, that the board erred by inexplicably reversing course on standards it had set by rejecting the first request for variance.

For instance, Metz noted that while the zoning board found under the first variance request that the development faced "no hardship if city code is followed," after the decision on the second variance request was granted, the board found that "implementing the code would create a hardship."

"Without supporting evidence on the record to arrive at such a determination and without a change in the nature or physical characteristics of the subject property, (the Board of Zoning Appeals) arbitrarily and capriciously arrived at a determination that was entirely at odds with its determination in the first variance request," Metz wrote.

Go here to see the original:
Summit challenges recent River's Gate zoning decision