Columbus council rejects use variance for carriage-house conversion at 41 S. Cypress

Columbus City Council voted down a use variance request that would have allowed a detached garage structure at 41 South Cypress Avenue to be used as a separate, habitable dwelling unit. The motion to grant the use variance was defeated by council after public testimony, staff recommendations and discussion.

Applicant Jason Huggard told the council he bought the property in January 2022 and believed the rear structure was a carriage house; he said construction began under a contractor who later stopped work and that he has invested tens of thousands of dollars to renovate the structure. “I bought the property in '20 January 2022... I was in panic mode trying to see if I can get an offer,” Huggard said, describing financial pressure after the contractor left the project.

City staff and Building and Zoning Services recommended approval of related area variances (setbacks, parking) but stressed that a use variance is required because the R2F district does not allow two separate single-family dwellings on one lot. The Franklin Area Commission and the neighborhood zoning body opposed the variance; Jack Chambers, chair of the Franklin Area Commission zoning committee, told council the commission was concerned about procedure and precedent, noting that work without permits and unpermitted conversions present enforcement and safety challenges.

Councilmember Dorrance led council through findings and legal analysis on the record and concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the kind of property-specific, non-self-inflicted hardship required for a use variance. Dorrance recited council’s factual findings and then proposed the working finding that the applicant “has failed to demonstrate undue hardship” and that financial difficulties resulting from the applicant’s actions do not meet the legal test.

The council’s motion to grant the use variance was defeated by roll-call; after the failure of the use-variance motion, the council voted to dismiss the remaining area-variance requests in that application and referred them back to the department because the use variance was a prerequisite to grant the other requested variances.

The applicant said he wants to finish the project and live on the property with family, and the applicant’s architect described the building as largely framed and roofed, with interior framing in place and a slab installed. Neighbors and area-commission representatives raised safety, parking and alley-access concerns, and urged council to follow typical permit and variance procedures. Council members discussed the tension between encouraging accessory dwelling and small infill housing and enforcing zoning and permitting processes. The defeated motion means the carriage-house dwelling may not be used as a separate unit unless the applicant pursues a compliant path, such as a new variance application presenting a different hardship case.