Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hopkins Pergola Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals denies Hopkins pergola variance at 9376 Nicholson Way
Summary
City staff recommended disapproval and the Board of Zoning Appeals voted against approving a six-foot encroachment for a pergola at the Hopkins residence (case 25-103 V), finding the application did not meet required nonuse-area variance criteria; the vote on a motion to approve failed 0–4.
The City of Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny approval of a nonuse-area variance for a pergola that extends roughly 6 feet into the rear-yard setback at 9376 Nicholson Way. The motion to approve the variance failed on a roll-call vote with four members opposing and none in favor.
Tammy Noble, the city planner who presented the case, told the board staff had evaluated both the A and B variance criteria and concluded the application did not meet the required standards. "Based on not meeting criteria A ... we are recommending disapproval for the nonuse area variance," Noble said. Noble traced the matter’s history to prior enforcement and a 2024 decision in the Court of Common Pleas that supported the city’s interpretation of the code.
Attorney Thomas McCarron, representing David and Beryl Hopkins, said the pergola was installed after the homeowners relied on HOA approval and contractor advice; he told the board the homeowners had spent money on the structure. "My clients have spent $12,000 on a pergola," McCarron said. McCarron argued staff had applied variance criteria inconsistently across similar cases and cited other decisions where staff found criteria met.
Board members pressed both staff and counsel on whether any changes to the code apply to this case and whether the fact that the pergola had been built without the required permit should weigh against relief. Several members said the record and the current code constrained their decision. One member summarized: while sympathetic to the homeowners’ situation, the board is "bound by the code" and could not find the criteria satisfied.
The board’s decision was procedural: a motion to approve the variance was made and seconded but failed on roll call. The board then moved on to the next agenda item.
What happens next: the denial was based on the evidence and the current code. The applicants may pursue other administrative or legal options available under the local code and state procedures; the board noted the decision is based on the record and the code as currently written.
Votes and actions: the board recorded the motion to approve and the motion failed (approval votes: 0; opposition: 4).
