Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves rear-setback variance for addition at 1105 Ormsby Place with condition
Summary
The Board approved a variance reducing the rear-yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet 4 inches at 1105 Ormsby Place to allow a one-story addition for aging in place, conditioned on Planning Commission approval of a lot consolidation.
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals voted March 11 to grant a rear-yard setback variance for 1105 Ormsby Place, allowing the owners to build a one-story rear addition that reduces the required rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet 4 inches.
Applicant Brenda Parker and the owners (identified in the application as Amy and Fred Muchio) said the addition would create a first-floor primary suite so the owners can age in place. Staff explained the site consists of multiple parcels — one of which lies in the adjacent village of Marble Cliff — and that a city utility easement on the property’s west side was vacated by the Grandview Heights City Council on Feb. 9, 2026. Staff and the applicants told the board the owners have recorded a lot combination with the county but still must obtain Planning Commission approval in Grandview Heights to regularize the consolidation locally.
Neighbor John Hoberg of 1953 Bluff Avenue told the board he had reviewed the application and had no objection. During substantial discussion members queried staff about the current county recording status, potential future jurisdictional complications if Marble Cliff property were to be treated differently, and how to word approval so it applies only to the plans before the board. Staff advised conditioning the approval on the drawings submitted and on Planning Commission action to address lot consolidation and potential lot-coverage calculations.
A motion to approve the variance as drawn, with the condition that the lot consolidation be approved by the Planning Commission, passed on the recorded vote. The staff packet attached related materials, including minutes from a prior BZA case (16-1998) that reduced a required rear setback on the lot decades earlier and documentation of the vacated easement.

