Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies 4‑foot rear‑yard variance for 166 Caddy Court
Summary
The Reynoldsburg Planning & Zoning Board declined a request to reduce a 30‑foot rear setback to 26 feet for a proposed covered porch at 166 Caddy Court, with staff saying the request was convenience-driven and neighbors and the applicant disagreeing about whether the lot constitutes a hardship.
The Reynoldsburg Planning & Zoning Board voted to deny a variance that would have allowed a covered porch to encroach four feet into the 30‑foot rear yard setback at 166 Caddy Court.
Staff presented Application No. 20250563 and recommended denial, saying the request appeared driven by convenience and did not demonstrate a deprivation of reasonable use or unique physical characteristics warranting a variance. "The requested the request appears to be driven primarily by convenience," staff told the board and recommended denial.
Jeff Borovetz, representing Suncraft Corporation and the applicant, argued the lot’s irregular shape — a curved front and angled rear property line in a cul‑de‑sac — created a hardship that left insufficient usable rear yard. "If it was straight, we wouldn't be here tonight," Borovetz said, urging the board to consider the lot’s geometry as justification.
Several neighbors, including homeowner Richard Verhoeven, testified in support. Verhoeven said he’s lived at 166 Caddy Court for 30 years and sought the covered porch in part to provide protection from weather for an aging family member. Neighbors Henry West and Joe Malice also described similar porch additions nearby and said the proposed structure would not harm the streetscape or public safety.
Board members questioned alternatives and noted that earlier porch encroachments may be grandfathered under prior zoning. Staff clarified that the city overhauled the zoning code in 2020 and that the current 30‑foot rear setback applies under the Suburban Residential (SR) zoning designation. Because the porch would be attached to the house, staff said it must meet principal‑structure setbacks rather than accessory‑structure standards.
After a motion to decline the variance, the board called the roll. The transcript records the roll call as follows: "Mr. Bresc: Yes; Miss Connolly: Yes; Mister Cuomo: No; Miss Ward: No; Miss Barnhart: Yes; Mr. Baner: Yes." The board recorded four yes votes and two no votes and the motion to decline carried.
The denial means the applicant may revise the project (for example by proposing a freestanding porch structure) or pursue other remedies, but no variance was granted at the Jan. 15 meeting.
