Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for newly built fence at 6923 Killarney Court
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a non-use area variance for a fence that was built without final zoning approval at 6923 Killarney Court, citing that the construction postdated a denied certificate of zoning plan approval and that criterion A(2) was not satisfied.
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a variance request for a fence at 6923 Killarney Court (case 25-102V), concluding that at least one required criterion was not met because the fence was constructed after the City denied a certificate of zoning plan approval.
Amy Noble, the presenting planner, told the board the applicant had applied for a certificate of zoning plan approval in April and that the application had been denied; construction was completed afterward. "We issued a denial for a Certificate of Zoning Plan approval for the location of the fence," Noble said. She told the board the property is in the Shannon Park PUD, a duplex-style subdivision with small lots, and that the applicant's fence currently sits on a 0-foot property line, creating a side-yard setback issue.
Homeowners Josh Shatner and John Shatner told the Board they built the fence before applying after being told by a planning representative they needed formal documentation. John Shatner said they relied on deed restrictions in their deed at purchase, which he said contained no setback requirement: "We built the fence in line with the deed restrictions that we had from when we purchased the house. The deed restrictions had no setback requirements," he said. Staff clarified that deed restrictions are private agreements and not enforceable by the City, so they do not substitute for code compliance.
Board members repeatedly returned to criterion A(2), which asks whether the need for the variance arises from conditions not created by the applicant. Several members said building the fence after the denial undercuts that criterion; one member called the situation "an act now and ask for forgiveness later" approach that the code does not permit. The roll-call vote on the motion to approve recorded No votes by Anderson, Linville, Murphy and Tysnick; the motion failed and the variance was denied. Staff said enforcement or negotiation could proceed following the denial, and staff offered to help the applicants navigate alternative processes (including an amended final development plan to change subdivision standards) if they choose to pursue them.
