Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Rear Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board holds rear-setback variance request for 6675 Woodsedge Drive until April 3
Summary
The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board agreed to hold a variance application for a rear-setback addition at 6675 Woodsedge Drive so the applicant can provide additional information addressing hardship and alternative designs; staff had recommended denial.
The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 20 agreed to hold application 2025-0033 — a request to reduce the rear setback at 6675 Woodsedge Drive — until no later than the board’s April 3 regular meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information.
The applicant, represented in the filing by Kevin Farrell of Great Day Improvements for property owner Toya Hall, asked to enclose an existing rear deck with a proposed 10-by-10-foot addition that would create a 6-foot-9-inch setback from the rear property line. The site is a 0.27-acre parcel in SR (Suburban Residential) zoning; the code requires a 30-foot rear setback for the main building.
Planning staff told the board the property is legal nonconforming and that the requested variance would reduce the required rear setback from 30 feet to 6 feet, 9 inches. In its written findings staff said the applicant had not shown a hardship beyond economic considerations and warned approval could set a precedent for similar corner lots. "Based on these reasons, staff recommends denial of the requested variance," planning staff said during the hearing.
Board members questioned whether the property differs materially from other corner lots and urged the applicant to document any hardship that is not economic. The chair summarized the variance standard for the applicant as requiring proof that "strict application of the provisions of this code would deprive the property owner of the reasonable use of land or structures," and said an economic reason alone is not a permissible hardship under the code.
Staff and the board noted an alternative: placing an addition at the side yard, where a 5-foot side yard setback exists, may avoid the need for a rear-setback variance. Planning staff and board members said they would be open to holding the file to allow the applicant to return with additional analysis showing why the site is unique or why side placement is infeasible.
The motion to hold the application until no later than the April 3 regular meeting passed on a roll-call vote: Ms. Cleckley, Ms. Allaby, Ms. Barnhart, Mr. Breresque, Mr. First and Mr. Brask voted yes.
The board did not take a final vote on the variance; the item was tabled pending supplemental material from the applicant.
