Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA tables second variance for same site; applicant to resolve setback, stormwater questions
Summary
Variance application 25-006, which sought reduced parking setback from Refugee Road and substitution of L2 screening for a 6–8-foot undulating mound, was tabled after staff and board raised unresolved setback measurements and stormwater/ditch concerns.
The Pataskala City Board of Zoning Appeals on March 11 tabled variance application 25-006, an additional request tied to the same development at 3001 A Parkway / 11558 Refugee Road. The application asked for a reduced parking setback from Refugee Road and permission to use L2 landscaping instead of the 6–8-foot undulating mound required by code.
City staff told the board the plans lacked a clear statement of how much setback relief was being requested; the packet shows a 40-foot parking setback, but the applicable reduced standard for a collector road would be 60 feet and the submitted plan proposed to reduce that setback to roughly 17.5 feet in the plan graphics. Staff and board members also raised concerns about a roadside drainage ditch that runs on the site and how moving the turnaround or reducing setbacks could affect stormwater management.
Applicant Bridal Wood said the turnaround shown is critical to operations and that, if the setback variance were denied, the turnaround (and the building) would have to shift approximately 40 feet, requiring a major redesign. City staff and board members recommended coordination with public service and the city engineer to determine whether storm piping, a revised drainage solution, or other engineering measures would allow the proposed layout without additional variances.
Bridal Wood requested the application be tabled; the board voted to table. Roll call recorded Yes votes from Mr. Howe, Mr. Coleman and Mr. Cooper. Staff noted that a variance could be made contingent on engineering and departmental approvals in some cases, but the board prefers to see that analysis and comments before granting setback relief because the drainage and stormwater questions could nullify an otherwise favorable variance and force a redesign.
The applicant and staff agreed the developer will return with revised plans and that staff will coordinate review with engineering and public service so the board can take a final vote on a complete, consistent application.
