Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission denies homeowner variance for patio and pergola at 7820 Straits Lane

New Albany Planning Commission · October 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The New Albany Planning Commission denied a variance request to allow a patio and pergola to encroach into required accessory-structure setbacks at 7820 Straits Lane, citing alternatives and concern about setting a precedent for similarly zoned lots.

The New Albany Planning Commission on Oct. 20 denied a variance that would have permitted a paver patio and pergola to extend into required accessory-structure setbacks at 7820 Straits Lane.

Staff told the commission the 0.17-acre lot’s proposal would place an uncovered paver patio 3 feet inside the five-foot recreational amenity allowance and a pergola 4 feet inside the 10-foot requirement. Staff recommended conditions to keep retaining walls at specific elevations and to prevent grading changes within the mapped 100-year floodplain so as not to displace water.

The applicant told the commission he had spoken with nearby neighbors and said none objected. He said the proposed patio floor would be about 1,018.4 feet — roughly 3 feet above the staff-cited 100-year floodplain elevation of 1,015.74 feet — and that the retaining wall would be approximately 2 feet high. He said the project team could accept the staff conditions on elevation and wall construction.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on alternatives and noted the lot’s dimensions limit design options. Several members said alternative layouts — pulling the pergola closer to the house or shrinking the patio — could avoid the request. They expressed concern about setting a precedent for identically zoned neighbors who could ask to exceed the same setbacks.

After admitting the staff report into the record, the commission voted on the variance. The motion to grant the variance failed; commissioners cited the Duncan variance factors, the existence of feasible alternatives, and precedent concerns in explaining their “no” votes.

The commission’s finding does not change the underlying setback requirements; the applicant may revisit design options or pursue other remedies under the city’s zoning rules.