Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to pole‑barn height and scale; board continues case after split vote
Summary
A proposed 23‑foot accessory building in a residential block generated extensive neighborhood opposition over scale and incomplete drawings; the Board of Zoning Appeals split on the variance and continued the case to the next meeting.
A proposal to build a 23‑foot pole barn for private storage in a Muny neighborhood drew sustained opposition from nearby homeowners who said the structure is out of scale and that drawings submitted to the board are inconsistent. The Delaware County Board of Zoning Appeals did not reach an official consensus and continued the request for a future hearing.
Chris Hyatt, the property owner, told the board the building is a high‑quality steel structure intended for personal storage — mainly an RV — and that he had invested in landscaping and screening trees to reduce visibility. “I went extra distance and incurred much additional expense to put up a first class building,” Hyatt said, and said he intended the structure for personal, noncommercial use.
Neighbors including Robert J. Kester and Jill Galer described excavation already under way and questioned the accuracy and scale of the submitted plans. Kester noted the application’s graphics are “not drawn to scale” and warned that a 23‑foot structure would loom over nearby one‑story houses; Galer said pole barns are seen as industrial and could reduce neighborhood desirability and property values.
Contractor Cole Miller and supporters told the board the building uses commercial‑grade steel and concrete lower columns and is intended to be durable and attractive. County staff noted that right‑of‑way and setback issues that may affect the garage footprint fall under county‑commissioner authority in unincorporated Delaware County; other material and construction compliance would be handled by the building commissioner at permitting.
After extended public comment and discussion about site dimensions and public notice, roll call produced three yes votes and two no votes, so the board did not reach the threshold for official action and continued BZA02‑26 to the next BZA meeting for further review and clearer documentation. The board asked the applicant to provide clearer scaled plans, photographic overlays and any updated site surveys before the next hearing.
The hearing record will note the neighbors’ objections about character, screening and the claim that work had begun before final approvals were obtained; the board signaled it wants additional documentary evidence and a clearer site plan prior to making a final determination.
