Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves small setback variance to enclose rear porch at 1046 Grandview Avenue
Summary
The Board approved a variance to reduce the accessory structure (porch) setback from 3 feet to 2 feet 7 inches at 1046 Grandview Avenue, while discussing an existing deck that encroaches on neighboring property and whether the approval should be conditioned on resolving that encroachment.
The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals voted April 8 to grant a variance for 1046 Grandview Avenue, allowing an enclosed porch enclosure to sit 2 feet 7 inches from the east rear property line instead of the 3‑foot setback required by code.
Applicant John C. Rosmus Jr. asked for a 5‑inch reduction to align the enclosed porch with an existing portion of the house. Staff described the lot as irregularly shaped with grading constraints and said the lot coverage calculation would remain at about 27% if the enclosure were built; staff took a neutral stance and advised the board. The staff report also noted that an existing deck extends over a neighboring lot (lot 147) and that any future structural modifications could trigger building‑department review and potential requirements to bring the deck into compliance.
John C. Rosmus Jr., the owner and applicant, told the board he sought only the 5‑inch variance to bring the enclosure in line with the existing structure and that he did not plan immediate changes to the nonconforming deck. “I plan on leaving it exactly as it is,” Rosmus said, but he acknowledged that if the neighboring owner later requests removal of the encroachment the owner would be required to address it.
Board discussion returned repeatedly to whether the BZA should condition an approval on resolving the deck’s encroachment (for example by an easement or trimming the deck back to the property line) or simply approve the narrower setback for the enclosure now. Staff and the city attorney advised the board that a variance would not shield the property owner from future civil actions by neighbors and that substantial modifications to the deck could require additional permits or variances.
A motion to approve the 2'7" setback for the accessory structure passed with recorded support; the case (06‑2026) was approved. The board did not attach a universal requirement in the record to resolve the existing deck encroachment, but members discussed that the applicant could be asked to address encroachment matters as a condition in future applications where appropriate.
Next steps: the applicant may proceed with building permits subject to standard building‑department review; if structural changes to the deck are proposed later, those may trigger additional review or a separate variance request.
