CITY OF PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JULY 24,
2003
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve front yard building setback variance for a fence at 505 Gnarled Oak Street (Stonebridge Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated that there is no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner proposes to raze the existing picket fence that is located around the house and replace it with 4-ft high shadow box fence along Stonebridge Street (north property line) and a 6-ft high privacy fence along the rear property line. The fence would connect with an existing fence along the south property line. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.15 – Fences in Front Yards – No fence, as defined in Section 1270.11(74), shall be located in the required front yard. The owner has an existing fence that apparently was constructed prior to 1992 when this requirement passed into the zoning code. The house was constructed in 1988 and at that time the fence would have been permitted. Therefore, the fence is considered a non-conforming use. Per the City’s non-conforming regulations, the owner could raze 50% of the fence, replace it with the same fence, and remain in compliance. However, if another type of fence were installed then the new fence would not be in compliance. The owner is proposing privacy and shadow box fence instead of the exiting picket fence. Staff Recommendation: Staff cannot make a recommendation and set a precedent. The Board needs to determine if the applicant has a hardship and if a variance is warranted. Additional Comments: Several people have requested fences in the front yard and have been denied and I told then they could request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Alexander, after being duly sworn, stated he was the property owner. Stated that he is the second owner of the house, that the fence is 15 years in age and is in great need of repair. Fixing it by replacing panels and painting it would cost a great deal. Would like to put a 4-foot shadow box fence on the east and north property line and a 6-foot privacy fence on the back since they are now building behind them. To use the 35 foot set back, then the fence would start at the edge of the house, which is exactly 35 feet, and this would cut the back yard in half, with young children this would leave no usable back yard.
Mr. Schultz stated that these are extremely small lots; today we would not approve such a small lot. Mr. Linek asked if the 6-foot privacy fence would run the entire length of the back yard. Mr. Alexander stated yes. Mr. Schultz stated that the back of this property is to Preston Trails subdivision. Mr. Schultz restated that this is a corner lot, so this lot has to front yards and that the back yard could actually hinder the lot in Preston Trails line of site from their driveway.
Mr. Sells moved to approve with the following recommendations: 1. That the 4-foot shadow box fence shall be set back 17.5 feet or half the distance between the house and property line, whichever is less, along the north property line. 2. That 6-foot privacy fence shall be permitted along the rear of the property. However the 6 foot privacy fence shall be installed parallel with the existing house line. Between the house line north to the property, a 4-foot shadow box fence shall be installed: Mr. Wells moved to approve; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Bowman voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning