Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for retaining walls at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge Court
Summary
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a non-use area variance allowing retaining walls to encroach into the rear-yard setback at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge Court after staff and the applicant presented engineering and topographic evidence showing severe contour changes and drainage benefits.
The Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant a non-use area variance for retaining walls at 4789 Kerrigan Ridge Court (case 25-104V), approving the applicant's design to encroach into the rear-yard setback. The motion passed on a roll-call vote with four affirmative votes.
Amy Noble, the city planner who presented the case, described the site as about a 0.5-acre lot in the Amberly PUD that faces the Scioto River and has approximately a 20'25-foot contour change toward the river. She told the board the applicant removed a previously proposed shed from the setback and provided additional technical materials that persuaded staff the second criterion for a variance warranted further consideration. "The site does have severe contour changes," Noble said, noting the proposed retaining walls are largely below grade and intended to control soil erosion and drainage.
Contractor Jeff Hausler of Hidden Creek Landscaping, who led the applicant presentation, said the design uses backfill gravel, drainage tile and geogrid layers to slow and capture water before it reaches neighboring properties. "By pushing the wall out, we're saying we have less of an impact on the current native area, and we're able to move the water flow and have better control over it," Hausler said, explaining that building entirely within the setback would be structurally possible but would require more excavation, more backfill and could worsen runoff.
Board members questioned whether the applicant's choice of a setback encroachment was dictated by the homeowners or by the lot's topography. After hearing staff confirm they had reviewed the new materials (including an engineering review), members said the severe grading and the drainage explanation made the proposed layout reasonable and less likely to harm adjacent properties than an alternative that required heavier excavation.
The board recorded its approval by roll call: Murphy, Linville, Anderson and Tysnick voted yes. Staff noted that, following the Board's recommendation, the project would proceed to the Building Department for permitting and inspection consistent with any conditions attached to the approval.
