Board of Zoning Appeals tables variance request for shed at Hicks residence

The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals voted to table a request from Christy Hicks and Matt Vida for a nonuse-area variance that would permit a shed to encroach roughly 12.5 feet into the 25-foot rear-yard setback at their property.

Planning staff recommended disapproval, telling the board that the structure had been built without a permit after a complaint on April 3 and that the applicant’s Certificate of Zoning Plan approval had been denied by staff on May 14. Staff said the site is approximately 0.23 acres in a planned unit development and that two of the variance criteria were not met; staff specifically said the applicant’s prior action — placing the shed before seeking the variance — weighs against approval.

The applicants, who identified themselves on the record as Christy Hicks and Matt Vida, said they installed a prefabricated shed just after Christmas to accommodate family members moving in and to store household items. Hicks said the lot is pie-shaped and one of the smaller lots in the subdivision, and she told the board she surveyed nearby neighborhoods and "noted a 171 properties" with sheds inside the 25-foot setback. "We are just asking and requesting for the same equal treatment and same fair treatment that they have been given," Hicks said.

Board members said they were split. Several members indicated the lot’s unusual shape and the fact that the rear of the property abuts a church parking lot and a shared-use path made the visual impact smaller than a typical encroachment. One member said: "The big row of pine trees, mature pine trees between the shed and the path ... makes a difference." Other members said they had difficulty overcoming the fact that the applicant put the shed in place prior to seeking relief and that alternatives (downsizing or reorienting the shed) remained available.

The board discussed options including moving the shed into compliance and then applying for relief, reorienting the structure, or working with staff to find a different location. City staff told the applicants that a denial would require either removal of the shed or a revised site plan placing the shed in a compliant location; staff also said a disapproval would bar the identical request for one year.

Faced with the split, the board voted to table the application and asked staff to work with the applicants on alternate siting, landscaping, or dimensional changes that might meet the variance criteria. The board did not render a final determination on the variance at this meeting; the applicants were advised they could return at a later date after working with city staff.

The meeting record includes inconsistent address details for the subject property (staff initially described it as 7663 Ashford Court while the applicants and subsequent staff references used 7563 Ashlord/Ashlard Court); the board and staff noted that site address and record clarifications will be confirmed in the case file.