Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Porches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB urges redesign, tables front-porch plan at 405 North Cassingham over right-of-way concerns
Summary
An applicant seeking to add an 8-foot front porch at 405 North Cassingham was told by Bexley staff and board members that work in the public right-of-way is difficult and that the detailed drawings do not reflect the house’s character; the board tabled the application to March 13.
The Bexley Architectural Review Board on Feb. 13 reviewed an application to add a front porch at 405 North Cassingham and tabled the matter to March 13 after detailed review of design, foundation and right-of-way issues.
Applicant Blake Floyd said the proposal would add a covered porch to the front of a corner lot house. Staff explained the project has two regulatory complications: the porch would extend into the public right-of-way and therefore would require a hold-harmless/consent agreement from city council, and the project will need a zoning review and, potentially, variances if the porch is built in the right-of-way.
Floyd described a change to the submitted drawings intended to keep one of the supporting posts in private property while allowing a cantilevered deck edge over the right-of-way. He told the board he had coordinated with city planner Matt and adjusted the corner post location to reduce the amount of work in the right-of-way.
Board members gave detailed architectural feedback. Mister Scott said the drawings read like a deck rather than a front porch and urged a higher-quality treatment that fits Bexley: “If this was a back deck like the last application, I wouldn’t be as critical ... but this is the front porch. Correct. The way it’s been detailed in these drawings is not for a front porch.” Several members said columns, piers and trim should be strengthened, the elevations should accurately reflect jogs and bay windows, and the foundation/cantilever detail needed structural review. Mister Hall urged involving a structural engineer and noted that cantilevering will complicate foundation design.
Several members also told the applicant that building in the right-of-way carries real risk. Mister Scott advised the applicant that structures in the right-of-way remain at the property owner’s risk because the city may later need to alter the right-of-way for utilities or sidewalks. One board member summarized the board’s view: they preferred the project be redesigned to avoid in-ground work in the city right-of-way.
When the applicant asked whether the proposed two-column, partially cantilevered porch should still pursue council consent, board members said the design team should first revise drawings to try to avoid work in the right-of-way and confirm options with planner Matt. The applicant agreed to discuss design revisions with the homeowner and the project’s architect and return for the March hearing.
On the tabling motion to March 13, 2025, the roll-call vote recorded a majority in favor; the transcript records Chairwoman Tony and most board members voting yes and Mister Hyer voting no.
The board offered three practical next steps: provide accurate site and elevation drawings showing setbacks and door locations; engage a structural engineer if the proposal relies on cantilevered support; and consult planning staff (Matt) before returning to avoid repeated design iterations that would require BZAP or council approval if elements extend into the public right-of-way.
