CITY OF PICKERINGTON

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2003

 

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

 

 

  1. ROLL CALL: Mr. Sells called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Bowman were present. Others present were Lance Schultz, Dawn Romine, Jeannette Castoe and Brett Castoe

 

  1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 24, 2003: Mr. Cline moved to approve: Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Bowman voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

 

  1. SCHEDULED MATTERS

 

A.                 Review and request for a motion to approve front yard building setback variance for a fence at 84 West Columbus Street (Castoe Property).

 

Mr. Schultz stated that the zoning history is; Planning and Zoning Commission approved Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials for a fence on August 12, 2003. Proposed Use: The owner proposes to install a 4-ft high wrought iron fence in front of the house and along the western property line to the existing garage. 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. 1) Fences are encouraged in the Olde Downtown Pickerington Village area. 2) A few uses in the Olde Downtown Pickerington Village have wrought iron or picket fences in the front yard setback. 3) A picture from the historical society indicates this house had a fence in the front yard in the past. 4) The wrought iron fence meets the Commercial Design Guidelines for building materials. 5) The intent of the requirement of no fences in required front yards is primarily for parcels located in subdivisions and adjacent to roadways and not particularly for the Olde Downtown area. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the variance request with the following conditions: 1. That the fence shall be installed as shown on the submitted plans. 2. That the fence shall not be anchored to the City sidewalk for liability and structural reasons. 3. That the installation of the fence shall be coordinated with the construction schedule of the City Streetscape Project. 4. That the fence shall be located within the applicant’s property along the western property line.

 

Mr. & Mrs. Brett Castoe, after being duly sworn, stated that they are the property owners. They wish to put this fence as close to the sidewalk as possible, to protect themselves and others from the grate that will be left after the streetscape project is finished, along with being able to hide the drainage that will be there and to landscape as best as they can. The Castoes plan on using the survey pins for their fence line, to assure that this is installed on their property.

 

Mr. Cline clarified that all neighbors have been duly notified. Mr. Schultz stated that they have been. Mr. Bowman clarified that the fence will be 4-ft high from the sidewalk.

 

Mr. Cline moved to approve; Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Bowman voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

  1. OTHER BUSINESS: Next scheduled meeting will be September 25, 2003 at 7:00 P.M.

 

  1. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further. Mr. Sells moved to approve; Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Bowman voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:08 P.M., August 28, 2003.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

___________________________________________

Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant

 

 

ATTEST

 

 

_______________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning Commission