Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architectural board tables driveway concrete waiver for 4896 Johnstown Road
Summary
The New Albany Architectural Review Board on Aug. 12 tabled ARB 54 20 24, a request to replace a gravel driveway with concrete at 4896 Johnstown Road, after members split on whether the request met the city's waiver criteria and precedent concerns; the applicant was advised to consider screening or alternative materials.
The New Albany Architectural Review Board on Aug. 12 voted to table application ARB 54 20 24, a request to allow a concrete driveway at 4896 Johnstown Road, after members said they were split over whether the request met the city's waiver standards and whether approving concrete would set an undesirable precedent.
During the staff presentation, planners said the 1956 single-family home proposes replacing a 120-foot gravel driveway with concrete and adding a 32-foot extension; staff noted driveway materials on the immediate block include one concrete, three asphalt and two gravel driveways and that the proposed concrete would tie into a neighbor's concrete apron.
Applicant David Bailey, identified by staff as the property owner, told the board his household relies on a well and that his priority is protecting groundwater and reducing long-term maintenance. "I strongly prefer to have the concrete," Bailey said, noting a neighbor offered to help pay for the work and that his family has drivers who would benefit from a smoother surface.
Board members framed their debate around the four waiver criteria established by council: the public-health/safety standard, providing an appropriate design or pattern considering context, substantially meeting the intent of the standard, and necessity due to site-specific conditions. One committee member said council's 2007 design guidelines did not list concrete and that approving concrete broadly would undermine the purpose of the rule. "Council knew about concrete in 2007 and they didn't specify it," the member said, adding that he was having trouble finding that the proposal "substantially meets the intent."
Other members cited continuity with the neighbor's concrete driveway and safety arguments for elderly visitors and easier egress. Board members and staff discussed alternatives such as brick, stone, simulated stone pavers or stamped concrete that could address both design and performance concerns.
Because only four voting members were present, a motion to table the application to the next meeting was made and carried. The clerk recorded four votes to table. The board advised Bailey to consider additional screening between properties or aesthetic options such as stamped concrete or pavers and to return with supplemental materials when the full board can review the application.
Action taken: application ARB 54 20 24 was tabled; no waiver was granted at this meeting.
