Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board tables request for taller fence and chain-link material at 8400 East Main St.

The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board on Monday kept open and tabled an application from Woodland Plaza seeking two variances for fencing at 8400 East Main Street.

Jack Reynolds, an attorney with Smith and Haele representing the applicant, said the owner and project team sought permission to raise fence heights and to allow chain-link fencing around a retention pond that, they say, now collects runoff from a large watershed. “What Larry is trying to do is protect the asset,” Reynolds said in presenting the application and introducing civil engineer Steve Hermiller and property principal Larry Rubin.

A city staff member, who presented the board with the application packet and exhibits, summarized the requests as: (1) increase the maximum permitted fence height from 4 feet to 5 feet along East Main Street and to 6 feet along Reserve Drive, and (2) permit chain-link as an acceptable fencing material in the East Main Street (EMD) district. The staff memo described the parcel as roughly 7.74 acres and recommended denial of both variances, saying the application did not demonstrate the unique or special circumstances the code requires and noting chain link is not authorized in any city district.

Engineer Steve Hermiller described how the retention pond sits within a larger drainage area, estimating the watershed that contributes to the pond at about 705 acres, and said the water-surface area of the pond has grown over time. “We hope if we do put a fence around here to protect the asset, it doesn’t … impede maintenance,” Hermiller said, arguing that a taller, partially camouflaged fence would allow safe access while reducing trespass risk.

Property principal Larry Rubin told the board the site’s history and urged action because of liability concerns. Rubin said the team already has about $30,000 of fencing materials on site, expects additional costs, and offered to plant white pines to screen the proposed chain link from neighboring houses. “I’m pleading because of liability, injury, that we be allowed to proceed,” Rubin said.

Board members and staff pushed back on the material request. The board chair stressed that allowing chain-link as a permitted material would be a change to the zoning code that the board itself could not make and that such a change would have to go to City Council. “Chain link fence is not authorized in any district in the city. It would absolutely be beyond our power to grant you that variance,” the chair said.

On the height request, staff noted that if the applicant can show the fence would be located more than the 20-foot building-setback from the street right-of-way in particular places, certain fence heights may be allowed without a variance (staff described the need for clear, revised drawings to confirm). Staff and the applicants discussed a schedule for resubmitting materials: staff said submission deadlines for packet review fall three weeks before a meeting and cited May 14 as the cutoff to be on the June 4 agenda and May 28 for the June 18 meeting.

Given the limits on what the board could rule on immediately and the applicant’s request to work with staff on redrawn setbacks, the applicant asked the board to keep the hearing open. Mr. First moved to table the matter and continue the hearing at the board’s June 4 regular meeting; the motion was seconded and approved by roll call (Ms. Barnhart yes; Ms. Conley yes; Mr. Schwamo yes; Mr. Benner yes; Mr. First yes).

The hearing remains open; the applicant will provide revised fence plans and setback information to staff for review before the board’s next meeting, at which the board may consider the remaining height variance requests. No final decision on the chain-link-material request was made by the board; staff advised that a change to the zoning code would need City Council action.

Reported details are drawn directly from the public hearing record and the applicants’ statements to the board.