Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin County planners refine shadowing rule, buffer-yard and setback clarifications in draft code
Summary
County planning staff rewrote shadowing rules to exempt trees and clarified buffer-yard and setback language — including a 25% rule for average setbacks on residential blocks — as they prepare version 4 of the draft code for public review ahead of an August hearing.
County planning staff presented a set of targeted revisions to the draft zoning code focusing on shadowing, buffer yards and how front/side/rear setbacks are determined in older town plats.
The presenter said the draft now restricts the shadowing standard to shadows cast by "primary structures" and accessory buildings, and explicitly exempts shadows from required buffer yards, landscaping or vegetated screening from constituting violations. "So I think that was already the intent that shadowing didn't apply to trees...Shadows cast by required buffer yards, landscaping or vegetated screening shall not constitute a violation of this standard," the presenter said. The change is intended to prevent existing tree lines — or newly planted screening — from triggering compliance actions intended for very tall, man-made structures.
Staff also walked the committee through a clarified buffer-yard definition: a 100-foot landscape buffer with three vegetation layers (evergreen, an understory of native shrubs and a hardwood canopy) plus a berm 8–12 feet high with a 3:1 slope. Members supported the clearer, layered definition as a way to increase resilience to disease or blight and to provide consistent screening.
On residential setbacks, planners proposed an exception that applies when 25% or more of lots on a block are already occupied by buildings: in those cases the average setback for the block would set the applicable setback standard rather than forcing a deeper setback. Staff said the intent is to respect historic lotting patterns in towns and in non-municipal R1–R3 zones where zero or very shallow setbacks exist.
The group debated encroachment rules for projections such as cornices, overhangs and porches. Members noted that allowing permitted encroachments (architectural projections, bay windows, porches) helps preserve historic downtown character but that the code should clearly prevent attachments that extend beyond property limits. Participants agreed to keep the existing encroachment protections while clarifying ambiguous phrasing in the encroachment limits.
The presenter told the attendees they will fold these edits into a Version 4 of the document for internal distribution and public posting; the commission is expected to allow public comment at an upcoming meeting before a final public hearing in August.
