Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pataskala BZA tables variance request to remove required mound, ask for clearer plans
Summary
The Pataskala City Board of Zoning Appeals on March 11 voted to table variance application 25-005, which sought to replace a required 4–6-foot undulating mound with an extended L2 landscape screen along the parkway; staff flagged multiple plan inconsistencies and potential additional variances.
The Pataskala City Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday tabled variance application 25-005, which would have allowed the applicant to provide L2 landscaping in place of a 4–6-foot undulating mound along the parkway and to continue existing frontage landscaping across two parcels at 3001 A Parkway and 11558 Refugee Road.
City staff told the board the project’s submitted plans and narrative conflicted in several places and that more variances — for tree species diversity, landscaping placement inside parking setbacks, dumpster location and mounting/slope standards — might be required before the board could approve the proposal. Jack (city staff) said the plan’s notes describe a 4–6-foot mound and a 2:1 slope in places, but the actual landscaping shown does not match those notes.
The applicant, Bridal Wood, said the submission was intended to identify the “critical path” variances so the design team could proceed and avoid reworking a full site layout. He told the board the requested variance would allow the developer to proceed with a preferred layout while they “fine tune” plans and try to avoid additional variances. Consultant Luke Baus described the operational reason for the proposed layout: to provide an on-site turnaround so trucks do not have to back into Refugee Road.
Board members said they were not opposed in principle to continued, consistent frontage landscaping but were concerned the current packet presented contradictory information and therefore left the board unclear which elements would actually be approved. A board member summarized the problem this way: because the plans and narrative conflict, “if we were to say yes, move forward, we accept — I guess the question would be which one are we accepting?”
Bridal Wood asked that the application be tabled so the applicant could resolve inconsistencies; the board approved a motion to table. Roll call votes recorded for the motion were Yes: Mr. Cooper; Yes: Mr. Howe; Yes: Mr. Coleman. The application was tabled and will return to the board when the applicant submits revised, consistent plans.
For the record, staff noted the approved plan manufacturing (PM) development on the larger parcel was built under an earlier PM code and that Chapter 12.53 (amended February 2023) establishes current requirements for screening, setbacks and landscaping that new development must meet or justify by variance. Staff also advised that permits must be obtained from the city within one year of approval if any variances are granted in the future.
The board moved on to consider a separate variance application for the same project after tabling this item.
