Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dublin board approves rear-setback variance for Oak Park home
Summary
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved variance case 25032B to allow a patio or deck at 7007 Primrose Court to encroach 12 feet into a 25-foot rear-yard setback, following a staff recommendation and board findings of special conditions in Oak Park Sub Area A. The board noted multiple similar variances in the neighborhood and said the city may pursue a code change to reduce repeat requests.
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday approved a variance allowing a homeowner in Oak Park to build a patio that encroaches 12 feet into a 25-foot rear-yard setback.
Staff presenter Zach, speaking for city planning staff, recommended approval of case 25032B and told the board the request was supported by unique site conditions in Sub Area A of Oak Park and by precedent: “Staff is recommending approval of the variance to allow for the patio or deck to encroach 12 feet into the 25 foot setback.”
The requested variance applies to a 0.23-acre lot at 7007 Primrose Court. Staff described the lot layout and a side-loaded three-car garage as factors that make accommodating rear-yard amenities difficult on these perimeter lots; they also noted a 10-foot easement along the rear property line that the proposed work would avoid. Planner Zach told the board the city has granted roughly eight or nine similar variances within the same sub area in recent years.
Applicant Shrikam Bastriddie, the property owner, told the board he selected the lot and the builder-supplied plan and had no option to move the house placement on the lot: “I have not enough room to build anything out there,” he said, adding that the existing staircase is deteriorated and that a patio would improve both his property and the appearance of the adjacent open-space entrance.
Board members questioned staff about whether the ‘same zoning district’ comparison for special conditions should be evaluated across the entire planned-unit development or only within Sub Area A; staff said they typically review the whole development and reaffirmed that the sub-area’s lot patterns create recurring constraints. One member suggested the city consider changing the setback rules for that portion of Oak Park to reduce the need for repeated variances.
With no public comment, a board member moved to approve “a nonuse-area variance to allow a patio or deck to encroach 12 feet into the 25 foot setback;” staff seconded the motion. The clerk called the roll and Miss Tysnick, Mister Anderson, Mister Nye and Mister Murphy each voted “yes,” producing a 4-0 approval.
The board thanked staff for the presentation and noted that staff will continue to evaluate whether a code amendment is appropriate to address the neighborhood pattern. The applicant’s variance is approved; the board had no further public hearings on the item and adjourned the meeting.
