[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6161074,"mediaKeyId","5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548","parentId",5445104,"title","Board continues decision on unpermitted 1,900-square-foot carport; owner told to work with staff","audioSeconds",963,"startMs",912000,"endMs",1875000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548&start=912&end=1875","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548/thumbnail_912000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6161074/Oklahoma/Board-continues-decision-on-unpermitted-1900-square-foot-carport-owner-told-to-work-with-staff","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161074-da535d859b1da605eddec8fb3690c903/orig.mp4?Expires=1770746147&Signature=F~2oLSmQKSa2sFvqpaWDvTNQ-SVcjINJCh5SvZR3UuUJli4r~9WPEkgBZtxVwEgEsDZtuRzWXDX2f~Ab5WSe99d3lX10nuK5k6CaJH4mKAbKPEup0MHaLD2Glrnz2q0mHcEXsgNUDntjvEDnZXqrZc3PKjHVuqhfhKYXQhR6y4nu1sR9BIcdfe5JW~ZwQ1SKIljlmga6WiB3SAd2-uKH-mSn3JtuD4WOrsT9MOBZYUXAv9hRN17aglM~0uVhKEDpOgsizk4u-E3QGTuiKg1LIpIEbBqoakZbMrmWcWgcuW-j-guAiM28axNb9jcXSG4eJJlfDoypph6toQnZ~MlUPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Oklahoma","date","2025-07-23T03:30:47.187Z","article","A variance request to keep a large, unpermitted accessory carport was continued to give the applicant time to work with staff on options to bring the site into compliance.

Applicant Christian Cifantes said he bought the property with a large pre-existing steel carport and later discovered it exceeded the city\u0000's accessory-structure size limits and lacked permits. Planning staff told the board the applicant cannot obtain a building permit for a principal dwelling while a stand-alone accessory structure remains on the lot unless the board grants a variance allowing a pre-existing accessory structure; staff also noted the structure exceeds the usual 1,000-square-foot maximum (applicant said the structure is roughly 1,900 square feet).

Why it matters: The case highlights how unpermitted accessory buildings interact with permit issuance for primary residences and how the board uses continuances to permit applicants to work with planning staff on compliance options.

Discussion and options: Board members pressed the applicant on whether he could reduce the accessory structure to the permitted size and whether a continuance could allow him time to demolish or modify the carport to 1,000 square feet so that the primary home could be permitted. Planning staff (Sarah Welch) advised that even if the accessory building were reduced to 1,000 square feet, the applicant would still need a variance to keep an accessory structure on the lot before a house is built because there is presently no primary structure on the parcel. Several board members suggested continuance so the applicant could consult with staff on demolition or modification plans and come back with revised documentation.

Outcome: The board continued the case to the August 7 meeting to allow the applicant to work with staff on a plan (options discussed included reducing the hard-surfaced area to 1,000 square feet, demolishing the accessory structure, or applying for an amended variance request). No final action was taken at the meeting.

Practical note: Staff recommended that if the applicant reduces the structure to the 1,000-square-foot maximum and wishes to retain it while building a house, he would still need a variance to allow a stand-alone accessory structure prior to construction of the primary dwelling.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oklahoma Board of Adjustment - July 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Adjustment continued a request from a property owner seeking to keep a large, unpermitted accessory carport that exceeds the city's 1,000-square-foot limit and prevents issuance of a building permit for a new house.","taxTitle","Other Public Meetings, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma","taxId",69689,"location","Oklahoma","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6161079,"Board approves billboard sign variance despite city—attorney advice and pending litigation",2907,2190000,5097000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548&start=2190&end=5097","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548/thumbnail_2190000.jpg","/articles/6161079/Oklahoma/Board-approves-billboard-sign-variance-despite-cityattorney-advice-and-pending-litigation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161079-1b98c818c1d007f601124b1a948a7f95/orig.mp4?Expires=1770746147&Signature=e2YfxiN4RrQr2JLPNjwKIpE~MHLH4VrHGhCJZ4JyO7vKBvdVjgS~yWicDyyRuCVHNw2gv-lAEadxRKBytPxW4JroXwM--3nZrOTO84Sjd6vT8D6dkfoc5o9EbAI3b3BC53ILTpJ5T7h3gLmHUclEzNreUwMoaMhEkZZl~w5KHzc7KoxMZadwh0Uv8L5BgQAZDRUJLL2cWA6u9nEKvyLF8Ro0rhJdMqOJFaIeqgDzhGeHR61bmebAvTBlJ5RHc~ElblVxMQ3pv151EseReGlbT4KPMD-ehL7qmxnLT68tx1VmCLqB3IN2L03MfKhYpcNLYxly8US9DKbENiav6o7Stw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Adjustment approved a variance request to allow a billboard sign despite objections from the city\u0000attorney's office and a pending district-court appeal over the same permit decision.

The vote followed a multi-hour hearing in which attorneys for both sides debated whether the city\u0000's new sign regulations require 300 feet of separation measured to HP-zoned property and whether the board\u0000's earlier ruling created a new, binding measurement method. Supporters of the variance said the HP property within 300 feet is Broadway Avenue (a street) not single-family homes, and that the separation requirement\u0000's purpose (protecting residences) is not implicated by the proposed sign. Opponents said the ordinance is clear, that zoning lines extend to the center of the roadway, and that granting the variance would conflict with the comprehensive plan and create unlawful precedent.

Why it matters: The hearing split legal and planning opinions and involves major billboard companies; the variance could affect where non-accessory signs may be built across the city and is already the subject of litigation before the district court.

What happened: David Box, attorney for the applicant, told the board the applicant met other permitting requirements and was seeking a variance only because the Board\u0000's prior interpretation of the spacing rule differed from staff and the applicant\u0000's prior approvals. William (Bill) Hickman, representing Lamar (a billboard operator) and Moore Outdoor Advertising, argued the sign code requires measurement to HP-zoned property and said recent court rulings and the city\u0000's written guidance supported denying the variance. Dustin Paris, assistant municipal counselor, told the board the city was defending the earlier appeal in court and recommended denial while litigation is pending.

Board members weighed several factors: some said the variance should be considered on its own merits because the permit had been issued by staff originally and the applicant later faced an appeal; others said the board should not take action while a related legal appeal is pending. Multiple members noted the unusual factual record: staff-issued permits, conflicting appeals, and later private leases and amendments involving nearby property owners.

Outcome and next steps: The board voted to approve the variance. No further formal conditions beyond the variance were specified at the hearing. The city attorney\u0000's office warned the board the decision could be appealed. The district court retained a pending summary-judgment date related to an earlier appeal of the board\u0000's actions; counsel for the city said the court process should run its course.

Context: The dispute centers on a 300-foot spacing requirement in the city\u0000's sign regulations intended to limit non-accessory signs near HP-zoned property. Attorneys debated how that 300-foot measure should be taken (property line vs. curb/right-of-way). Opponents cited a comprehensive-plan policy (E-14) discouraging additional billboard signs.

Board action: motion to approve the variance carried after comment and debate; the public record now includes both this board approval and the separate, ongoing district-court litigation.","The Board of Adjustment voted to grant a variance to sign-spacing rules for a proposed billboard after a contentious hearing in which city attorneys urged denial and opponents warned of setting a legal precedent; the request drew sustained debate about how to measure the 300-foot separation from Historic Preservation (HP) zoned property.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6161064,"Board approves most home-sharing requests with standard conditions; neighbors prompt some denials and continuances",12660,2516000,15176000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548&start=2516&end=15176","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548/thumbnail_2516000.jpg","/articles/6161064/Oklahoma/Board-approves-most-home-sharing-requests-with-standard-conditions-neighbors-prompt-some-denials-and-continuances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161064-d0a2f7c0b5426145f9338b9bcdfd5f62/orig.mp4?Expires=1770746147&Signature=AlnUuLUrHdLQHNPesH8wK3lTZWfviGLf1kMPlRuYZzuKHxBcYQZ~-17tSvBW0e0e9eEzWg28x1wX7IUzdLmRV0aUTRjZaNFcRPdNt8aXMDP~YuBTJeAJGKogB9wdCqvGkBBc14J9iYeNgPt04zWcWsQ7Vzp5bA9E8K4Lht27UjwwUdFFptRgw6CqbHCQ2kabMjQrnz8KRZjVa-GDFQXFyVs2AHXsjuIBGGm5gHA-glS0Oc1RDQyNpZkrXyQJzvRDRgV393nr9rbL4f2A76XyRkZjf9kIeRtYNY7UO0jG18tInvNoasSYgPJRHm~B~NCHQ6DvuDGFzEiBmCUkNYve6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Adjustment considered more than two dozen home-sharing (short-term rental) applications and renewals and approved the majority with standardized conditions while denying or continuing applications where neighbors documented repeated problems.

Common conditions imposed by the board included: quiet hours (generally 9 p.m. to 8 a.m.), limits on overnight guests tied to bedroom count (commonly two guests per bedroom plus one), maximum numbers of vehicles and prohibitions on on-street parking, and one- to three-year terms for permits. Across multiple cases the board favored conservatively-sized occupancy limits on first-time applications (many approvals limited occupancy to two per bedroom or set a lower cap than the applicant requested) and shorter trial terms where neighbors had expressed concern.

Where problems arose: Several denials or contentious hearings were driven by neighbor testimony describing late-night parties, repeated police or code-enforcement contacts, overflowing trash, and management that neighbors said failed to respond promptly. In those cases the board cited the pattern of complaints and, in at least one instance, prior operational violations as reasons to deny renewal.

Continuances and remedies: The board routinely used continuances to allow applicants to work with planning staff on compliance (for example, to reduce a structure\u0000's size, adjust parking arrangements, or confirm whether a unit qualifies for the grandfathering clause). Staff advised that timely renewals generally receive different treatment than late or new applications; the board also heard legal questions about how neighborhood covenants (CC&Rs) interact with city rules.

Why it matters: The meeting illustrated the board\u0000's practice of applying a standard set of conditions to home-sharing permits while balancing neighborhood livability and property owners\u0000' rights. The decisions provide a pattern other operators can consult: clear rules on quiet hours, parking, occupancy, and manager responsiveness can increase chances of approval; repeated violations can lead to denial even for previously permitted properties.

What to watch next: Planning staff said fee changes and an updated application submittal process are being implemented, and several cases were continued to upcoming meetings for revised documentation or mitigation plans.","At the meeting the Board of Adjustment approved a large number of home-sharing special exceptions with routine conditions (quiet hours, vehicle limits, 1- to 3-year terms), denied several applications after neighbor protests, and continued a few cases to allow applicants and staff to resolve outstanding issues.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6161069,"Board denies home-share renewal at North Francis Avenue after neighbors cite repeated disturbances",1368,6160000,7528000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548&start=6160&end=7528","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5445104-fa22af003cf0253e8c8312cb2da2d548/thumbnail_6160000.jpg","/articles/6161069/Oklahoma/Board-denies-home-share-renewal-at-North-Francis-Avenue-after-neighbors-cite-repeated-disturbances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161069-98e5aeea57bb593b526faf1b0bda020f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770746148&Signature=l12WVtH~pNiGPhH3Hrk2trePKK7Pbc26rEHUGCS~1Tgg6mGkodDFmUZAoXhLawUqg7L1QkNTLNYM1tSS2qjXH29qrs6tTyS8~TNBoPHmM~W-386S4IqgmLC6eHa0cbM9L84hJH-qu3X2yiRRl80ariIk9zJWyD5ZBqizkx-qo0ch7C12jEW9~4HgLdJYFmYwgiDVpgpoVgG22szjsPy2UiZJAc2FHIZSUcwSlG3dILsJApZL-Ddqs~j~o8QvOn5FQ3T58pV94o6C1xAdvgf2S6Q-FRa9jPN244BVisKlar8L0hcKIA3FMNWUpqXYpW26BJwR13MastZv7zgt9QMZPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Adjustment denied a renewal request for a home sharing special exception at 923 North Francis Avenue after neighbors presented multiple complaints about noise, parties, trash and failure to timely respond.

Neighbors said the property had repeatedly hosted events that produced late-night noise, vehicles parked in restricted places, overflowing trash and even activity on the roof that disturbed adjacent bedrooms. One neighbor described a wedding-party staging event, a film shoot with overnight activity and a birthday with as many as 15 cars in the street. The neighbor said outreach to the owner and the management company had not resolved the problems.

The property\u0000's co-host/manager told the board his company responds to complaints, monitors the property with cameras and takes action when notified; he said they had removed guests, reported violations to Airbnb and driven by properties to check on issues. The manager also said some of the snapshots submitted by neighbors captured short time windows and that the company had taken remedial steps when informed.

Board members weighed the written record and oral testimony. Several members said the property had been given an initial year to demonstrate compliance and that the pattern of violations and multiple complaints undermined confidence a renewal would succeed. Staff noted prior code-enforcement contacts and that the property had operated at times without a current license.

Outcome: The board voted to deny the renewal application (case 15967). The manager and owner are responsible for code compliance procedures and may seek other administrative remedies.","Board denied a renewal application for a home sharing permit at 923 North Francis Avenue following neighbor testimony about repeated late-night parties, trash, and management failures; the board cited multiple documented complaints in reaching its decision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board continues decision on unpermitted 1,900-square-foot carport; owner told to work with staff

Board approves billboard sign variance despite city—attorney advice and pending litigation

Board approves most home-sharing requests with standard conditions; neighbors prompt some denials and continuances

Board denies home-share renewal at North Francis Avenue after neighbors cite repeated disturbances