Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies variance to allow shed to encroach into rear setback at 5613 Adventure Drive

Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals · March 26, 2026
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 Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to allow a 160 sq ft shed to encroach 17 feet into a 30-foot rear yard setback at 5613 Adventure Drive, agreeing with staff that the variance criteria were not met and noting the applicant installed the shed without prior approval.

The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals denied a nonuse-area variance that would have allowed a 160-square-foot shed to encroach 17 feet into the 30-foot rear-yard setback at 5613 Adventure Drive. Planning staff had recommended denial, and the motion to approve the variance failed on a 5–0 roll call vote.

Planning staff presented the case, noting the application did not meet Code criteria and that approving it could create precedent for similar requests in the R-4 suburban residential district. "With that, planning recommends disapproval of the nonuse area variance," staff planner Tori Brubaker told the board. The applicant, Marquette Hovann, and her husband, Brandon Starr, acknowledged the shed was installed before final approval and described lot constraints—pool, deck, fire pit, an existing easement and lot shape—that they said limited compliant locations. "I also want to say that city planning has been kind and helpful in walking us through the process once we became aware of it," Hovann said, and asked the board to consider whether granting the variance would cause "meaningful harm."

Board members focused on the Code's three-part variance test and the applicant's action of installing the structure without a permit. Members noted that even if the yard is practically constrained, the applicant's construction of the shed before gaining approval weighs heavily against meeting the required criteria. Neighbor testimony was mixed: neighbor Nick Alain said the shed was "very intrusive" and visible from his backyard, while another neighbor, Mitch Kaufman, told the board he did not find the shed intrusive and felt it "fits well" with the neighborhood. After deliberation, the board voted against the motion to approve the variance, and the request was denied.

The board did not direct additional follow-up for this item; the applicant was informed of the outcome and options under the Code for subsequent applications or corrections.