Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Dublin board approves retaining-wall variance for 4789 Kerrigan Ridge
Summary
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals approved a nonuse area variance allowing retaining walls to encroach into the rear-yard setback at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge, citing severe site contours and drainage concerns; the decision was unanimous.
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals on Dec. 18 approved a nonuse area variance allowing retaining walls to encroach into the required rear-yard setback at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge, citing severe topography and drainage risks. The motion passed unanimously on roll call.
Tammy Noble, a planning staff member, described the lot as approximately 0.52 acres in the Amberly PUD with a 20–25-foot contour drop toward the Scioto River and told the board the retaining walls are largely below grade. "Given these severe contour changes… I would change our recommendation for number 2," Noble said, acknowledging additional technical material provided by the applicant had altered staff's earlier recommendation.
Contractors for the applicant, Jason Cromley and Jeff Hausler of Hidden Creek Landscaping, described the engineering intent: moving one wall out and shortening another increases room for gravel backfill and geogrid layers that slow runoff and reduce excavation. "The more gravel we have behind it, we're able to slowly capture that water, put it into a drainage system tile behind it," Cromley said, explaining how the design aims to reduce risk to adjacent properties.
Board members pressed whether the wall could be built entirely inside the setback and whether doing so would be structurally feasible. Members concluded the applicant's design would better protect neighboring yards and the proposed placement reduced excavation and potential negative drainage impacts. One committee member said the updated information made the retaining-wall approach "the most feasible option." The board found that, on balance, the property’s severe contour and the applicants’ engineering approach met the variance criteria.
The board’s approval clears the way for the applicants to pursue necessary building permits. As Noble explained during the hearing, this approval would be reviewed by the Building Department either with the board's recommendations or in accordance with code, and permits and inspections will follow.
The board took the vote after public comment was closed and no additional speakers addressed this case. The decision is limited to the nonuse area variance for the retaining walls; any further permitting, inspections, or related permits will proceed through standard building-permit channels.
