Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dublin board denies fence variance after homeowners built fence without permit

Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals · December 18, 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 Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals denied a nonuse area variance for a fence at 6923 Killarney Court after finding the work was performed without required approval and that code criteria were not met; staff noted remedies through Planning Commission or enforcement.

The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals on Dec. 18 denied a nonuse area variance request for a fence at 6923 Killarney Court after board members concluded the application did not meet required variance criteria and the fence had been constructed without prior city approval.

Tammy Noble, planning staff, told the board the applicant had sought a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval in April that was denied, and that construction was completed afterward. "Deed restrictions are not enforceable by the City," Noble said, explaining that private deed restrictions do not substitute for municipal zoning requirements.

Applicants Josh and John Shatmer told the board they built the fence based on deed restrictions they received with the property and said neighboring yards include similar fences. "We built the fence in line with the deed restrictions," one of the applicants said, adding they were unaware of additional city requirements. Staff noted an enforcement case exists on the property.

Board members focused on criterion A2 — whether the variance is necessitated by actions or inaction of the applicant — and on whether the lot's configuration differed sufficiently from neighboring lots to justify a variance. Members flagged that the applicant's decision to build before receiving city approval weighed against granting relief. The board discussed alternatives: the applicant could move the fence to meet side-yard minimums (8 feet) or pursue an amended final development plan through the Planning Commission to change PUD standards for the subdivision.

A motion to approve the variance was moved and seconded for the record, but roll-call votes were recorded as 'No' by the voting members, resulting in denial. Staff told the applicants the city could pursue code enforcement or the applicants could pursue the Planning Commission remedy to request a subdivision-wide change.

The board then approved its 2026 meeting dates and adjourned.