Commission denies conditional‑use request for proposed 9‑room B&B at 163 North Franklin

The City of Delaware Planning Commission on Sept. 2 denied a conditional‑use application to operate a boutique bed‑and‑breakfast at 163 North Franklin Street. The five‑member roll call ended with two votes in favor and three opposed, and the motion to approve did not carry.

Applicant Jared Jablanca told the commission he had contracted to purchase the 0.366‑acre property and believed, based on seller representations and previously issued building permits, that the site already had approvals to operate as a nine‑room B&B. "We don't have any interest in running a hotel a commercial hotel here," he said, describing the plan as an owner‑run B&B with no addition, roof deck or entertainment spaces.

Staff advised commissioners that the proposal is a conditional use in the Residential Neighborhood Transition district and that conditional approvals transfer with the property and can include enforceable conditions and periodic inspections. Staff also noted one small amendment to the draft resolution: an added condition requiring a privacy fence in response to neighbor concerns.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on operational details — whether the site would be staffed 24/7, whether an owner would be required to live on the property, and whether off‑street parking would be sufficient. The applicant said he intended to finish the framed nine guest rooms and to sell to an owner‑operator rather than manage the property long term, and that the team was offering to add additional off‑street parking. Neighbors and commissioners worried that a future owner might prioritize revenue over neighborhood compatibility.

Commissioner Prowl moved to approve the conditional use with staff recommendations; Commissioners Stroud and Chair Simpson voted yes, while Commissioners Feller, Prowl and Vice Chair Nana voted no, and the motion failed. The commission did not reopen the public hearing (staff and commissioners said the matter had already been opened and closed at the Aug. 5 meeting and that reopening would conflict with Ohio Revised Code procedures).