Bexley Architecture Review Board approves four residential projects, tables five to April 10

The Bexley Architecture Review Board voted unanimously to approve four residential alteration projects and signed a six-item consent agenda at its recent meeting. The board also voted to table five applications to a date certain, April 10.

The approvals included: a certificate of appropriateness for a new spa, paver patio and pergola at 680 Grandin (ARB25-4); a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a previous addition and replace it with a new addition and attached garage at 86 South Cassidy (ARB25-5), conditioned on submitting dimensioned elevations to staff; a certificate of appropriateness to enclose a front porch and add a rear mudroom at 2557 East Broad Street (ARB25-6), with conditions requiring reorientation of the rear stair, reuse of existing brackets on the rear porch, and design refinements to the front stairs; and a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 125 North Cassingham (ARB25-7) with conditions to work with the city design consultant on insulation of the conditioned space, exterior lighting and the placement and grid pattern of windows.

The board opened the meeting by reading six consent-agenda items listed by staff and then asked whether anyone from the public wished to speak; none did. After a motion and second, the board approved the consent agenda by roll call (all three members present voting yes). The board then announced five applications would be tabled to April 10 and voted to table those items to that date.

Nut graf: The approvals allow property owners to proceed to permit stages, but several approvals include conditions requiring further design details or staff review. In each instance the board conditioned final permits on additional submittals to ensure materials, dimensions, or site transitions meet the board’s standards.

Board members clarified conditions on several approvals. For 86 South Cassidy (ARB25-5) the board required dimensioned, noted elevations (heights, slopes, materials and window specifications) be submitted to staff; if those details are not provided the project would be returned for further review. For 2557 East Broad Street (ARB25-6) the board required the rear exterior stair be reoriented, asked that the applicant preserve and reuse decorative brackets on the new rear porch, and requested the applicant present a purposeful treatment for the front stair area.

Votes at a glance: - Consent agenda (six items): motion to approve consent agenda — outcome: approved — vote: Mister Hall (yes), Miss Jones (yes), Chairman Scott (yes). - Tabling of five applications to April 10 (BZap25-1; ARB24-51; BZap25-2; BZap25-4; ARB25-12): motion to table to April 10 — outcome: tabled to April 10 — vote: unanimous yes. - ARB25-4 (680 Grandin — new spa, paver patio, pergola): motion to approve certificate of appropriateness — outcome: approved and certificate issued — vote: unanimous yes. Condition: minor design changes subject to residential design consultant review. - ARB25-5 (86 South Cassidy — demolish previous addition, new addition and attached garage): motion to approve certificate of appropriateness with condition that dimensioned noted drawings be submitted to staff — outcome: approved — vote: unanimous yes. - ARB25-6 (2557 East Broad Street — enclose front porch, add mudroom): motion to approve with conditions to reorient rear stair, use existing brackets on new rear porch, and address front stairs in a “purposeful” way — outcome: approved — vote: unanimous yes. - ARB25-7 (125 North Cassingham — enclosure/addition): motion to approve with conditions that applicant work with the city design consultant on insulation of the conditioned porch space, exterior lighting, exterior transition details and window patterns (placement, trim, grid) — outcome: approved — vote: unanimous yes.

Board members and staff emphasized that several approvals include specific conditions that must be completed with staff before permits are issued. Applicants were told that failure to submit required details could result in the application being returned to the board for further review.

Ending: The board completed the scheduled agenda items and moved on to old business and recommendations to the Board of Zoning and Planning.