Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bexley board grants variance for backyard playhouse at 819 South Cassingham

2146517 · January 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board granted a variance allowing a large, built playhouse to remain within 3 feet of the south property line at 819 South Cassingham, after split votes and discussion about precedent and visibility. Vote was 4–3.

The Bexley Board of Zoning and Planning voted 4–3 Thursday to grant a variance for an accessory playhouse built within 3 feet of the south property line at 819 South Cassingham.

The property owner, Nathan Danson, told the board the multi-level playhouse was positioned against the fence so the child who uses it can be seen from house windows and the alley gate. Staff said the structure was built without a permit and that accessory structures are required to be 3 feet from rear property lines under Bexley code section 1252.15g1.

Board members debated precedent. Several members said the board had denied a very similar playhouse case months earlier and that approving this application would be difficult to justify unless there was a distinguishing factor. Support letters from nearby neighbors were presented; Danson said immediate neighbors had not complained and that the structure is not sunk into the ground and can be disassembled and moved in the future.

After the findings of fact were read, a roll call showed votes in favor by Miss Lautestack, Mr. Schick, Miss Dorn and Chairman Marsh; Mr. Turner, Mr. Levine and Mr. Rosenthal voted no. The board’s findings grant a variance from Bexley code section 1252.15g1 to allow the playhouse to remain within 3 feet of the south property line.

The applicant asked when a decision would be issued and was told the vote was taken at the meeting. The board’s discussion cited visibility and the temporary nature of the structure as distinguishing features in members’ yes votes.

The board approved the variance 4–3.