Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bexley board allows existing nonconforming driveway at 43 South Cassingham despite neighbor objections
Summary
After a prolonged exchange between neighbors and attorneys, the Bexley Board of Zoning and Planning granted a variance allowing an existing nonconforming driveway at 43 South Cassingham to remain as submitted; the board constrained its decision to the physical driveway and noted restoring any gravel parking area as a separate matter requiring additional approvals.
The Bexley Board of Zoning and Planning voted to allow the existing nonconforming driveway at 43 South Cassingham to remain, rejecting objections from an adjacent owner who had urged conditions to prevent the space from becoming an on‑site parking spot.
Staff told the board the driveway became nonconforming after a 1997 backyard renovation cut off rear‑yard access; staff recommended a variance under Beexley code section 1262.04 to keep the driveway in place but clarified that restoring a gravel parking pad or converting the area to a functional parking space would require separate variances because of dimensional and location rules.
Greg Monree, attorney for the adjacent property owner at 51 South Cassingham, told the board the history and easement agreements did not create a right to park and pressed for conditions if the board allowed the driveway to remain. "The issue is the use since the owners have purchased this in 2022. They have used it for parking," Monree said, and proposed requiring a three‑foot non‑disturbance corridor, a prohibition on overnight or long‑term parking, and automatic termination of the variance if conditions were violated.
An applicant representative said the property owners relied on representations from a city representative and a title company when they purchased the house, and asked to restore a historic gravel area used for short‑term drop‑offs. Staff responded that re‑installing gravel on the property would not by itself create a legal parking space under current code and that a separate variance would be needed to change the use or the size of a parking space.
Board members focused the decision on whether the driveway, as submitted, could remain. Several members stressed that enforcement of any improper parking would be complaint‑driven and separate from the variance decision. Ultimately the board read findings of fact and concluded a variance was appropriate to allow the existing nonconforming driveway to remain as submitted; the board moved the matter to a formal vote and approved the finding.
The board did not adopt the additional voluntary conditions proposed by the adjacent owner as part of the variance; staff and members emphasized that restoration of a gravel parking area intended to function as a parking space would require a separate application and additional variances.
The board’s action leaves open the possibility that neighbors could raise enforcement complaints if the driveway is used as a regular parking space in conflict with the city code. The board’s finding cited Beexley code section 1262.04 and limited the approval to the modification/replacement of the existing nonconforming driveway as submitted.
