Delaware City BZA approves variance allowing corner-lot shed to remain at 304 Pinecrest Court

The City of Delaware Board of Zoning Appeals voted 6-0 on Wednesday to grant a variance that allows a backyard shed to remain 18 inches from the property line at 304 Pinecrest Court.

Jason Lukasco, the applicant and homeowner at 304 Pinecrest Court, told the board he built the shed after finding a printed guideline that he later learned applied to Delaware County, not the City of Delaware. "I have a paper here that I printed out back then, which states that anything under 200 square feet did not require a permit, so I went ahead and built my shed," Lukasco said, explaining he discovered the error only after construction.

The variance request sought relief from "11 56.02(a) minimum yard requirements for accessory structures" for the parcel (Parcel 51931115005000), a 0.259-acre lot zoned R-1 PUD (single-family residential with PUD overlay). City planning staff recommended denial, concluding the applicant had not demonstrated the special circumstances or hardship the zoning code requires for a variance.

During the hearing, planning staff noted the fence on the property is about 12 inches from the property line and the shed sits about 18 inches inside the fence, with portions of the shed overhanging the fence. The staff presentation pointed to the ordinance's intent to preserve light, air and separation between buildings and to reduce fire risk. Staff also observed the owner purchased the property in 2008 and the lot has been subject to city zoning regulations since then.

Board members asked applicants about neighbor outreach, drainage and whether the shed used parts of the fence for support. Jason and Amanda Lukasco said they consulted immediate neighbors before building and that the nearest neighbor, identified in the staff packet as Cindy, had not reported any problems. The applicants said the shed was built primarily to store trash cans and to reduce an eyesore, and that moving it would require replacing the fence and removing a gate near a utility box.

Staff told the board the shed could be moved farther into the yard to meet the three-foot setback without a variance, but noted the shed had already been constructed and incorporated fence posts. A planning staff member summarized the recommendation: "Staff does recommend denial of the request for the variance, for the fact that there was no hardship shown that justifies approval of the variance." (City planning staff, identified in the record as David, answered board questions and presented the report.)

Board members discussed the balance between the applicant's error — following county rather than city guidance — and the present condition on the lot, including neighbor support and limited public visibility from the street. After discussion, Board member Mr. Bonas moved to approve the variance. A roll call vote followed: Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Bonas, Mr. D'Ariano, Ms. Fisher, Mayor Riggle and Vice Chair Latta voted yes; Mr. Schwab was excused. The motion passed 6-0.

The board's decision means the shed may remain where it is. Staff told the applicants they would receive a certificate of action and that the permit application already submitted will continue to be processed.

Details recorded in the hearing include the applicants' ownership of the property since 2008, the lot size (approximately 0.259 acres), that the shed was completed within the past one to two years, that the fence has an approved permit on file, and that the shed frame is wood with metal siding and roof. The board did not identify any required follow-up conditions beyond normal permitting and the issuance of the certificate of action.