Ordinance 25-10RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No.
Passed . 20_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 153.002,153.074
AND 153.139 OF THE DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES
(ZONING CODE) REGARDING ACCESSORY USES
AND STRUCTURES (CASE NO. 10- 021ADM).
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Sections 153.002, 153.074, and 153.139 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances
contain information related to accessory uses and structures; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Code amendment is to base maximum square footage for
detached accessory structures based on proportionality to the principal structure for
smaller parcels and on a portion of the lot size for larger parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment
on June 10, 2010 and recommended approval to City Council because it serves to
improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall
provide as follows:
§ 153.002 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
ABOVEGROUND POOL. Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation more
than one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in
water surface area, and 18 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for
swimming or bathing purposes.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. Any structure that is subordinate to the principal structure
on the same lot or site, intended to accommodate accessory uses.
ACCESSORY USE. Any use that is subordinate to the principal use on the same lot or
site, serving a purpose customarily incidental to and which does not change the character
of the principal use.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. The official charged with the administration and
enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
ALLEY. A secondary access way of not less than 20 feet in width dedicated to public use
for travel or transportation and affording vehicular access to abutting property.
AUTO - ORIENTED COMMERCIAL FACILITY. A facility where a service is rendered
or a sales transaction is made while the patron is typically not required to exit his/her
vehicle, or a facility that includes services rendered directly on, to or for vehicles. Auto -
oriented commercial facilities include, but are not limited to drive -thru restaurants, drive -
in restaurants, automated teller machines (ATMs), drive -thru banks, drive -in movie
theaters, car washes (all types), gas stations, facilities specializing in oil changes, car
repair, establishments installing car accessories, other similar auto service facilities, and
stand -alone parking lots. The sale of vehicles (new or used) is not included within this
definition.
BORROW PIT. A lot or parcel of land or part thereof used for the purpose of extracting
sand, gravel or topsoil for sale or use on other premises, and exclusive of the process of
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.
25 -10
Passed
Page 2 of 11
20
grading a lot preparatory to the construction of a building for which application for a
building permit has been made.
BUILDING. A structure intended for shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or
chattel. When separated by dividing walls without openings, each portion of such
structure so separated shall be deemed a separate building.
BUILDING, HEIGHT OF. The vertical distance measured from the grade to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the mean height
level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
BUILDING SETBACKLINE. A line determined by the zoning district in which a lot is
located establishing the minimum allowable distance between the nearest portion of any
building and the side and rear lot lines and the right -of -way line of any street when
measured perpendicularly thereto.
CHILD CARE. Any place, home or institution which cares for young children apart
from their parents when received for regular periods of time for compensation such as
kindergarten, nursery school or class for young children that develops basic skills and
social behavior by games, exercises, toys and simple handicraft.
CIVIC BUILDING OR USE. A building or location that provides for community
meetings and/or activities including, but not limited to, City Hall, Township Hall, school
administration building, recreation center (public or private), property listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, Chamber of Commerce building, Arts Council
building, library, or other public buildings owned or operated by the city.
CLINIC. An establishment where patients are not lodged overnight, but are admitted for
examination and treatment by a group of physicians or dentists practicing medicine
together.
COMMISSION. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the municipality.
CONDITIONAL USE. A use allowed in a zoning district after a permit is granted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission according to the provisions of § 153.236.
COUNCIL. The Council of the municipality.
CURB LINE. The face of a curb along a curbed public or private street.
DECKING (POOL). The concrete, cement, wood, metal, brick, or other material
surrounding a sw immin g pool.
DISH ANTENNA. An outside accessory antenna that is linked to a receiver located on
the same lot and used for the reception of signals transmitted by stations licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission in the Radio Broadcast Services including AM,
FM and TV.
DRIVEWAY. The hard paved surface of a lot that is specifically designated and reserved
for the movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street. This definition
includes the area from the street providing access to and from the lot and any
maneuvering areas.
DRIVE -IN COMMERCIAL USES. Retail or service establishments which provide a
designated place where people can drive up in automobiles and conduct the major portion
of their business without having to get out of their automobiles or where the serving of
the automobile is the major business. Drive -in commercial uses include, but need not be
limited to drive -in restaurants which prepare and/ or dispense ready to eat food or
beverages and does not provide a place for all its customers to eat inside the building or
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of I I
Passed 20
which serves ready -to -eat food or beverages for carry out; drive -in theaters, drive -in
eating and drinking places, establishments where customers may serve themselves and
may eat or drink the food, refreshments or beverages on the premises; car washes; drive -
in banks.
DWELLING, FARM. A single- family dwelling on a lot of five or more acres.
DWELLING, SINGLE- FAMILY. A building arranged or designed to be occupied by
one family, the structure having only one dwelling unit.
DWELLING, TWO - FAMILY. A building arranged or designed to be occupied by two
families, the structure having only two dwelling units with separate entrances.
DWELLING, MULTIPLE FAMILY. A building arranged or intended for three or more
families living independently of each other in separate dwelling units.
GARAGE. An accessory structure or an accessory part of a principal structure used
primarily for the storage of passenger vehicles as an accessory use.
GARAGE, ALLEY- LOADED. A garage with vehicular access from a public or private
alley or drive typically from the rear of the property.
GARAGE, COURTYARD- STYLE. A garage with vehicular access through an enclosed
or partially enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a principal structure
typically providing access to a side loaded garage.
GARAGE, FRONT - LOADED. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented
toward the same street right -of -way or private street as the front facade of the principal
structure.
GARAGE, SIDE - LOADED. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented
toward one of the side lot lines or a secondary public right -of -way or private street.
HARD SURFACED OR PAVED AREA. Includes but is not limited to patios,
driveways, court- yards, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swimming
pool decks and walkways (the water area is excluded), and bicycle paths.
HELIPORTS. An aviation accessory devoted to the landing, takeoff and storing of
helicopters.
LANDSCAPED AREA. An area that is permanently devoted and maintained to the
growing of shrubbery, grass and other plant material.
LARGE FORMAT RETAIL. A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of
gross floor area.
LIVABLE AREA. The livable area of the principal use or structure shall be defined as
the total square footage of all rooms meeting CABO requirements for sleeping, living,
cooking, or dining purposes of a dwelling, excluding such places as attics, basements
(unless finished and meeting the aforementioned CABO requirements), garages, and
similar spaces.
LOT. Includes the words "plot' and "parcel."
LOT, DEPTH OF. The average horizontal distance between front and rear lot lines.
LOT, MINIMUM. A parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by a principal structure
or group of structures and accessory structures together with such yards, open spaces, lot
width and lot area as are required by the Zoning Ordinance, and having not less than the
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 11
Passed 20
minimum required frontage upon a street, either shown and identified by lot number on a
plat of record, or considered as a unit of property and described by metes and bounds.
LOT LINE. A line bounding or demarcating a plot of land or ground as established by a
plat of record.
LOT WIDTH. The average horizontal distance between side lot lines.
MINOR PLAN MODIFICATION. A nominal deviation from, or clarification of, the
adopted plan and/or text, provided it will neither increase the permitted density nor the
potential traffic generated, and the proposal remains consistent with the original design,
land use, intent and developer commitments of the adopted plan, and with the preferred
scenario of the Community Plan. Approval/disapproval of any request for a minor plan
modification shall be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of its
administrative review in a planned district. For the purpose of this section, the adopted
plan and/or text refer to those documents adopted by City Council as part of a rezoning
action, including a preliminary development plan.
NO -BUILD ZONE. An open area where construction is prohibited. All structures
including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming
pools, patios, decks or other accessory structures, fences, antennae and basketball courts
or other sport courts are prohibited in order to preserve open space. A no -build zone is
typically found along the rear of a single - family lot. Over lot grading and the placement
of underground utilities are permitted within no -build zones.
NONCONFORMING USE. A legal use of a building and/or of land that antedates the
adoption of the zoning ordinance and does not conform to the regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located.
OPAQUENESS. The degree to which a wall, fence, structure or landscaping is solid or
impenetrable to light or vision in a generally uniform pattern over its surface.
OUTDOOR SERVICE FACILITY. An area that is not fully enclosed by solid walls and
a roof and where services are rendered or goods are displayed, sold, or stored. For
purposes of this section, outdoor service facilities include, but are not limited to outdoor
dining areas, restaurant patios, outdoor storage areas, open -air markets, garden stores, and
stand -alone parking lots.
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. The principal or predominant structure intended to
accommodate the principal use of any lot or parcel of land.
PRINCIPAL USE. The primary use to which the premises are devoted and the primary
purpose for which the premises exist.
SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. A commercial
establishment including adult cabaret, adult store, or adult theater primarily engaged in
persons who appear nude /semi -nude, live performances, films or other visual
representations, adult booths, or sale or display of adult material.
SHALL. Is mandatory.
STREET RIGHT -OF- WAY -LINE. The dividing line between a street right -of -way and
the contiguous property.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent
location on the ground, or attachment to something having permanent location on the
ground, including advertising signs, billboards, mobile homes (located for occupancy on a
permanent foundation) and other construction or erection with special function or form,
except fences or walks. Includes the word "building."
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No
Page 5 of 11
Passed 20_
SWIMMING POOL. Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation less than
one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water
surface area, and 18 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming
or bathing purposes.
TOWNHOUSE. A building consisting of a series of three or more attached or semi-
detached dwelling units, each with a ground floor and a separate ownership or
condominium.
USED or OCCUPIED. As applied to any land or structure shall be construed to include
the words "intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied."
YARD, REAR. An open space between the rear line of the principal structure, exclusive
of steps, and the rear line of the lot and extending the full width of the lot and may be
used for accessory structures.
YARD, SIDE. An open, unoccupied space on the same lot with a structure between the
side line of the structure, exclusive of steps, and the side line of the lot and extending
from the front line to the rear line of the building.
ZONING DISTRICT. Any section of the municipality in which zoning regulations are
uniform.
ZONING ORDINANCE. This Chapter.
§ 153.074 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
(A) Purpose and Scope
(1) Accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in association with a
principal use or structure. Permitted accessory structures shall be
subordinate and proportional in area to their location. For smaller
residential lots, accessory structures are intended to be proportional in
area to the size of the principal structure. For larger residential lots,
accessory structures shall be proportional to the size of the property on
which they are located For non - residential districts, accessory uses and
structures shall be proportional to the principal use or structure.
(2) Applicability. This section shall apply to accessory uses and structures in
all zoning districts unless otherwise provided for in the development
requirements of the District in which the property is located or the
respective planned development text.
(3) Accessory Uses.
(a) Residential: Storage, recreation, child care, home occupations,
leisure and gardening/landscaping uses, and others as permitted by
the District in which the property is located or as determined by
the Administrative Official.
(b) Non - Residential: As permitted by the District in which the
property is located.
(4) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(a) Residential: Garages and carports (attached and detached), sheds,
swimming pools, hot tubs, sport courts and similar facilities,
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No.
Page 6 of 11
Passed 20
gazebos, porches/sunrooms, patios, decks, greenhouses, or similar
facilities, and other similar structures as determined by the
Administrative Official.
(b) Non - Residential: Dumpster enclosures, sheds, garages/parking
structures, greenhouses, and other similar structures as determined
by the Administrative Official.
(c) Temporary: Construction trailers, portable classrooms, portable
non - residential structures, special event tents, and others in
accordance with §153.097.
(d) Landscape features, including but not limited to planting beds,
fountains, and other similar features, and play structures shall not
be considered accessory structures and are therefore not subject to
the regulations of this Section.
(B) Accessory Uses and Structures in Residential Districts and Residential Planned
Development Districts
(1) Accessory uses shall comply with any applicable requirements of this
Code or approved development text.
(2) Detached Accessory Structures.
(a) This Section shall apply to detached accessory structures for
residential properties, including but not limited to detached
garages, sheds, greenhouses, carports, and other similar structures
as determined by the Administrative Official. "Attached," for the
purpose of this section, means that the addition is integrated
visually, structurally and architecturally with the principal
structure, has an attached roof with similar design to the principal
structure, permits access between the principal structure and the
addition either internally or under the roof, and/or shares a
common wall with the principal structure or is connected to the
principal structure by an enclosed space.
For purposes of determining attachment, an enclosed space is an
area under a roof which has solid walls at least eighteen inches in
height around its entire exterior, or which is 100 percent screened,
walled, or provided with glass from floor to ceiling, so that the
enclosed interior space is completely separated from the outside
space.
(b) The following shall not be counted toward the maximum
permitted square footage for detached accessory structures: fire
pits, sport courts, swimming pools, hot tubs, solar panels, kennels,
attached three- season rooms, screened porches, decks, or patios.
Gazebos, trellises and arbors or other open and unenclosed
structures or similar structures that are 250 square feet in area or
less, as determined by the Administrative Official, shall not be
counted toward the maximum permitted square footage.
(c) The following shall not be counted toward the number of
permitted detached accessory structures: gazebos, trellises, and
arbors or other similar structures that are 250 square feet in area or
smaller; other similar landscape features, fire pits, sport courts,
swimming pools, hot tubs, solar panels, kennels, attached three
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No
Page 7 of 11
Passed . 20_
season rooms, screened porches, decks, patios, or other similar
structures as determined by the Administrative Official.
(d) For the purposes of this §153.074(B)(2), only the gross square
footage of ground floor area shall be counted toward the
maximum permitted detached accessory structure square footage.
(e) Maximum square footage and number of detached accessory
structures
Property
Size
Requirements (Cumulative)
840 sq. ft., OR 30% of the livable area of the
principal building excluding attached garages,
Less than 1
acre
whichever is greater. In no case shall the height of
the detached accessory structure exceed 18 feet.
Not more than two detached accessory structures
shall be permitted.
1,000 sq. ft., PLUS 250 sq. ft. per acre or fraction
thereof over one acre, up to a maximum of 2,000 sq.
ft.
In no case shall the height of the detached accessory
I - 5 acres
structure exceed 22 feet.
Two detached accessory structures PLUS one
additional detached accessory structure per acre
greater than one acre shall be permitted. Not more
than five detached accessory structures shall be
permitted.
2% of the lot area, not to exceed a cumulative
square footage for all detached accessory structures
of 3,000 sq. ft.
Additional setback requirements: For any single
detached accessory structure in excess of 2,000 sq.
ft. setbacks are as required by the District in which
the property is located, PLUS 25 ft. for each 250 sq.
Over 5 acres
ft., or fraction thereof, over 2,000 sq. ft.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter,
AND zoned
R or R -1
detached accessory structures shall be permitted one
garage door not greater than 12 feet in height,
provided that the structure is located to the rear of
the principal structure. The maximum height for
accessory structures shall not exceed that permitted
for the principal structure.
Not more than five detached accessory structures
shall be permitted.
(f) Except as may otherwise be permitted, no part of any accessory
building shall be used as a dwelling for residential purposes.
(3) Accessory Structures in Multiple- Family Residential Districts
(a) Multiple family residential units shall be permitted not more than
one two -car garage per unit provided all other applicable
development requirements are met.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
I I Ordinance No.
Page 8 of 11
Passed 20
25 -10
(b) The exterior fagade materials and architectural design of all
accessory structures shall be coordinated with those of the
principal building.
(c) This section shall not prohibit accessory uses and structures
typical of multiple - family residential developments, including but
not limited to clubhouses and/or administration offices, pool
houses, laundry facilities, gatehouses, mailbox shelters, dumpster
shelters or enclosures, recreational facilities, and other similar
structures as determined by the Administrative Official, provided
all applicable development requirements including but not limited
to lot coverage, setbacks, open space, and stormwater
management are met.
(d) For detached garages in multiple- family residential districts, not
more than five garage doors are permitted in a single row or plane.
(4) Garages. Attached garages shall not be counted toward the maximum
permitted square footage for accessory structures. All new and additions
to existing front - loaded attached and detached garages or garages that are
visible from the street and angled less than 60 degrees to the front lot line
or street tangent line must meet the following requirements:
(a) No single garage door opening shall be wider than 18 feet. Only
one such garage door is permitted.
(b) No combination of garage door openings shall be wider than 36
feet.
(c) Not more than two garage doors may be located on the same
horizontal plane of the principal structure. Additional garage
doors must be located on separate planes with a minimum
separation of 16 inches.
(d) Garage door openings totaling 18 feet in width or less shall not
make up more than 35% of the linear distance of the front
elevation nor project more than 12 feet from the adjacent vertical
wall plane. Open and uncovered porches shall not be considered a
vertical wall plane.
(e) Garage door openings totaling more than 18 feet up to 36 feet in
width shall not make up more than 45% of the linear distance of
the front elevation nor project more than 10 feet from the adjacent
vertical wall plane. Open and uncovered porches shall not be
considered a vertical wall plane.
(5) Required Location in Residential Zoning Districts
(a) All accessory uses and structures, including swimming pools and
associated decking, shall be constructed within the permitted
buildable area of a lot, behind all applicable setback lines, and to
the rear or side of the principal structure.
(b) No build/no disturb zones shall remain free of all structures
including, but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways,
sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios, decks, or other
accessory structures, fences, antennae, and basketball courts or
other sport courts. All other plat requirements shall be met.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
25 -10
Ordinance No.
Page 9 of 11
Passed 1 20 _
(6) Relationship to Principal Structure
(a) Attached and detached accessory structures that exceed 200
square feet shall be coordinated with those of the principal
structure on the lot.
(b) Attached accessory structures must conform to all regulations of
this Chapter applicable to principal structures.
(C) Residential Swimming Pools.
(1) Permitted Types.
(a) Permanent swimming pools. Only below -grade permanent
swimming pools are permitted.
(b) Temporary pools. Inflatable or other temporary pools are
permitted provided they have a maximum depth of 18 inches and
are placed to the side or rear of the primary structure.
(c) Hot tubs. Hot tubs are permitted accessory structures, and may be
either below or above grade, provided that they do not exceed 100
square feet in total water surface area, or 4.5 feet in depth or
height as measured from finished grade. Hot tubs, which exceed
these size and height requirements, shall be considered swimming
pools and must be placed below the established grade. Hot tubs
shall be secured with a lockable cover or shall be entirely enclosed
by a permitted barrier with a self - latching and lockable gate.
(2) Size. Swimming pools shall not be considered detached accessory
structures for the purposes of calculating maximum permitted area based
on the size of the principal structure or the lot. All principal structures are
permitted a swimming pool if yard space, lot coverage, and other related
development standards for the pool and deck or patio area are met.
(3) Location and Setback. There shall be a minimum separation of ten feet
between a swimming pool and the principal structure. Swimming pools
shall not be located within the front building setback, forward of any part
of the house, or within a required side yard, rear yard, or other restricted
area of the lot (e.g., a no -build zone). No swimming pool shall be located,
designed, operated, or maintained as to interfere unduly with the
enjoyment of the property rights of surrounding property owners.
Nuisances shall be pursued according to all applicable city ordinances.
(4) Swimming Pool Barriers.
(a) Swimming pools located within all zoning districts shall be
surrounded by open ornamental swimming pool barriers or a solid
swimming pool barrier, provided the solid barrier is no higher
than four feet and otherwise complies with the regulations herein
and this section.
(b) All openings, doorways and entrances into the pool area shall be
equipped with gates of equal height and material with the fence,
and shall be provided with latches and permanent locks.
(c) In residential districts, swimming pools that are nonconforming by
reason of location and setback may be enclosed by an open
ornamental or solid swimming pool barrier, not more than four
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank. Inc.
25 -10
Page 10 of 11
Passed . 20_
Ordinance No.
feet high. Swimming pool barriers may be in addition to any other
fencing that may exist on the property. Swimming pool barriers
may be located within a required setback area, provided that the
barrier is located at least 10 feet from any other fence on the
property or not farther than 10 feet from the edge of the pool.
(5) Accessory equipment. No swimming pool accessory equipment, including
but not limited to pumping equipment, filtering equipment, diving boards,
or slides shall be located in any required yard. All accessory equipment
shall be screened with evergreen landscaping to the maximum height of
the unit. The maximum permitted height of a diving board or slide shall
be 10 feet from the established grade, unless otherwise approved by the
Administrative Official.
(6) Permit required. A building permit is required for permanent swimming
pools. The following requirements are to be met:
(a) Submission of a scaled plot plan showing all necessary area, lot
coverage, setback, and yard requirements.
(b) Pools shall be graded to contain water on property for which a
permit is issued and so as not to harm adjacent property.
(c) Electrical wiring and equipment shall comply with the National
Electrical Code; an electrical permit for grounding and other
electrical equipment is required.
(d) State Health Board approval is required for community pools.
(e) Fees for a residential/private pool shall be assessed as set forth
from time to time by ordinance, per permit.
(f) Fees for commercial public pools shall be calculated under §
150.177.
(g) Swimming pool barrier details are required with the submission of
a building permit for permanent residential swimming pools.
Swimming pool barrier details shall include the type, height,
design, open space dimensions, access gates, and any required
door alarms in accordance with the Residential Building Code.
(D) Non - Residential Zoning Districts.
(1) Accessory uses and/or structures within nonresidential zoning districts
shall not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the principal structure(s)
unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
(2) Required location in non - residential zoning districts or uses. In any
zoning district except a residential district, accessory uses or structures
shall be on the same lot as the principal use or structure and located
subject to the development requirements of the zoning district in which it
is located.
§ 153.139 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this section, certain terms are herewith defined. When not inconsistent
with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular
number include the plural, words in the plural number include the singular, the word
"person" includes association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation,
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.
25 -10
Page 11 of 11
Passed 20
organization, as well as an individual; the word "structure" includes building; the word
"occupied" includes arranged, designed, or intended to be occupied; the word "used"
includes arranged, designed or intended to be used; the word "shall" is always mandatory
and not merely directive; the word "may" is permissive; and the word "lot" includes plot
or parcel. Other words and terms shall have the following respective meanings:
(A) ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE. See § 153.002, Definitions, for
definitions of "Accessory Use" and "Accessory Structure."
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this � day of - t 2010.
Mayor - <, -sm
ATTEST:
0-n-�<Z G Z-4L ��
Clerk of Council
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 o
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Terry Foegler, City Manager? F-/
Date: August 5, 2010
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Re: Ordinance 25 -10 — Amending Sections 153.002, 153.074, and 153.139 of the
Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Accessory Uses and
Structures (Case No. 10- 021ADM)
Update
This request was presented to Council for first reading on July 1, 2010, Council Members requested that
Planning prepare examples of how the proposed Zoning Code amendments would be applied to
residential parcels of varying sizes. Council also discussed the number of detached accessory structures
allowed, particularly for larger lots. Examples are attached to this memo, demonstrating how the
proposed regulations would apply to each of the three lot size categories along the Scioto River,
including an example of a 12 -acre lot that would be permitted the maximum detached accessory
structure number and square footage (a total of five structures adding up to 3,000 square feet). The
proposed Zoning Code language remains unchanged since the first reading.
Summary
At the April 26, 2010 City Council meeting, Council directed Land Use and Long Range Planning to
prepare an amendment to the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.074 governing accessory uses and
structures. Council requested that Planning prepare regulations that would provide flexibility to allow
residential accessory structures to be proportionate to the size of the property rather than solely to a
proportion of the size of the principal structure. In response to the issues discussed by City Council,
Planning prepared draft Code language that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed at their May
20, 2010 meeting and recommended for approval on June 10, 2010.
Description
The proposed Code amendment includes modifications to Code Section 153.074, Accessory Uses and
Structures in residential districts. The amendment will continue to limit maximum square footage for
detached accessory structures based on proportionality to the principal structure for smaller parcels, but
will base the maximum permitted square footage on lot size for larger parcels. The proposed amendment
also clarifies what constitutes attached and detached accessory structures. Minor administrative
amendments are proposed to the sections regarding swimming pools and accessory uses and structures
in non - residential districts. The proposed amendments are summarized below.
• Applicability. The proposed modification applies to detached accessory structures, such as
unattached garages, sheds, and other storage structures. Attached accessory structures, including
three - season rooms, screened porches, and similar structures, are considered part of the principal
structure and are regulated accordingly. Other accessory structures, such as sport courts, swimming
Memo re. Ordinance 25 -10 Accessory Uses and Structures
August 5, 2010
Page 2 of 2
pools, and gazebos less than 250 square feet, will be limited by lot coverage and setback
requirements. (Section 153.074 (A))
• Maximum Size. The Zoning Code currently measures gross floor area for the maximum accessory
structure building size. To be consistent with the proportionality requirements, only the ground floor
square footage counts toward the maximum permitted area. This amendment would also ensure that
detached accessory structures on lots less than one acre remain subordinate in size to the principal
structure. For larger lots (one acre or greater, but less than five acres), the amendment would allow
accessory structures to total up to 1,000 square feet, with another 250 square feet for every acre or
fraction thereof, with a combined maximum of 2,000 square feet. For residential lots five acres or
greater, accessory structures will not exceed a combined maximum of 3,000 square feet (Section
153.074 (B)(2)(d)(e)).
• Garages. Attached garages are not separately addressed in the Zoning Code. Regulation of garages,
particularly front- loading garages visible from the right -of -way, should be distinguished from other
accessory structures because they often form a critical functional and aesthetic component of the
principal structure. While the Residential Appearance Standards (Code Section 153.190) include
regulations for the appearance of attached garages, it only applies to homes that were constructed
after the date this section was adopted (July 2, 2007). The proposed Code amendment includes
regulations for the appearance of all front - loading garages, attached and detached, regardless of
when the principal structure was built.
• Swimming Pools. The Zoning Code currently requires that the area of swimming pools be included
in the total square footage permitted for accessory uses and structures. Because swimming pools and
detached accessory structures are very different in nature, the amendment would calculate the
permitted square footage for swimming pools separately, using lot coverage, setbacks, and other
applicable restrictions to regulate size and location.
• Definitions. The proposed Code modification includes the addition and clarification of several terms
in Code Section 153.002, Definitions, including Accessory Structure, Accessory Use, Principal
Structure, Principal Use, Multiple - Family Dwelling, and Garage.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At their May 20, 2010 meeting, Planning presented the proposed Code language to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The Commissioners made several modifications, including clarifying the terms
related to determining whether an accessory structure is considered attached or detached; requiring
gazebos, arbors, trellises, and other similar structures that exceed 250 square feet in area to be included
in the detached accessory structure size limitation requirements; and basing the number of detached
accessory structures permitted for residential properties on lot size.
The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation for approval to City Council at the June
10, 2010 meeting following a review of the requested modifications.
Recommendation
Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 25 -10.
" Ordinance 25 -10
w e Accessory Uses and Structures
s _. Zoning Code Amendment
CoFD�� Example Lots
CITY OF DUBLIN_
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090
Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 4104490
To: Members of Dublin City Cou ?I r From: Terry Foegler, City Manager
Date: June 25, 2010
Memo
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Re: Ordinance 25 -10 —Amending Sections 153.002,153.074, and 153.139 of the
Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) Regarding Accessory Uses and
Structures (Case No. 10- 021ADM)
Summary
At the April 26, 2010 City Council meeting, Council directed Land Use and Long Range Planning to
prepare an amendment to the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.074 governing accessory uses and
structures. Council requested that Planning prepare regulations that would provide flexibility to allow
residential accessory structures to be proportionate to the size of the property rather than limiting them
only to a proportion of the size of the principal structure. In response to the issues discussed by City
Council, Planning prepared draft Code language that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed at
their May 20, 2010 meeting and recommended approval at their meeting of June 10, 2010.
Description
The proposed Code amendment includes modifications to Code Section 153.074, Accessory Uses and
Structures in residential districts. The amendment will continue to limit maximum square footage for
detached accessory structures based on proportionality to the principal structure for smaller parcels, but
will base the maximum permitted square footage on the lot size for larger parcels. The proposed
amendment also clarifies what constitutes attached and detached accessory structures. Minor
amendments are proposed to the sections regarding swimming pools and accessory uses and structures
in non - residential districts. The proposed amendments are summarized below.
• Applicability. The proposed modification applies to detached accessory structures, such as
unattached garages, sheds, and other storage structures. Attached accessory structures, including
three- season rooms, screened porches, and similar structures, are considered part of the principal
structure and are regulated accordingly. Other accessory structures, such as sport courts, swimming
pools, and gazebos less than 250 square feet, will be limited by lot coverage and setback
requirements. (Section 153.074 (A))
• Maximum Size. The Zoning Code currently measures gross floor area for the maximum accessory
structure building size. To be consistent with the method of proportionality proposed with this
modification, only the ground floor square footage will be counted toward the maximum permitted
area. This amendment would also require that detached accessory structures on lots less than one
acre remain subordinate in size to the principal structure. For larger lots (lots that are one acre or
greater, but less than five acres), the proposed Code amendment would allow a base square footage
of 1,000 square feet, and permit up to another 250 square feet for every acre or fraction thereof up to
Memo re. Ordinance 25 -10 Code Amendment - Accessory Uses and Structures
June 25, 2010
Page 2 of 2
a maximum of 2,000 square feet. For residential lots five acres or greater, accessory structures shall
not to exceed a cumulative maximum of 3,000 square feet. (Section 153.074 (B)(2)(d)(e))
Garages. Attached garages are not separately addressed in the Zoning Code. Regulation of garages,
particularly front - loading garages visible from the right -of -way, should be distinguished from other
accessory structures because they often form a critical functional and aesthetic component of the
principal structure. Furthermore, the Residential Appearance Standards (Code Section 153.190)
include regulations for the appearance of attached garages, but this section only applies to homes
that were constructed after the date this section was adopted (July 2, 2007).
The proposed Code amendment includes regulations for the appearance of all front - loading garages,
attached and detached, since the overall objective is to minimize the appearance of garage doors and
maintain aesthetics from the right -of -way. The proposed Code modification would apply to all front -
loading garages, regardless of when the principal structure was built.
Swimmin Pools. The Zoning Code currently requires that the area of swimming pools be included
in the total square footage permitted for accessory uses and structures. Because swimming pools and
detached accessory structures are very different in nature, the amendment would calculate the
permitted square footage for swimming pools separately, using lot coverage, setbacks, and other
applicable restrictions to regulate size and location.
Definitions. The proposed Code modification includes the addition and clarification of several terms
in Code Section 153.002, Definitions, including "Accessory Structure," "Accessory Use," "Principal
Structure," "Principal Use," "Multiple- Family Dwelling," and "Garage."
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
At their May 20, 2010 meeting, Planning presented the proposed Code language to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The Commissioners made several modifications, including clarifying the terms
related to determining whether an accessory structure is considered "attached" or "detached," requiring
gazebos, arbors, trellises, and other similar structures that exceed 250 square feet in area to be included
in the detached accessory structure size limitation requirements, and basing the number of detached
accessory structures permitted for residential properties on lot size.
At their June 10, 2010 meeting, following a review of the requested modifications, the Planning and
Zoning Commission made a recommendation for approval to City Council.
Recommendation
Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 25 -10 at the second reading/public hearing
on August 9, 201 0.
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
§ 153.002 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning.
ABOVEGROUND POOL. Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation more than
one foot above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water surface
area, and 18 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or bathing
purposes.
6048MRff it+ 680086480 W414 448 priffeipa4 building or use affid AA'1qiPlq is lepa_4edl E444 414A same 44
with Stieh Pfifleipft4 building Of use.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. Any structure that is subordinate to the principal structure on the
same lot or site, intended to accommodate accessory uses.
ACCESSORY USE. Any use that is subordinate to the principal use on the same lot or site,
serving a purpose customarily incidental to and which does not change the character of the
principal use. n ..w a: use l .hieh i in tR an d ...,.. n i n etien with the
priffeipal building or use R44d, AA'1qiPlq iS 106R.40d, E444 414A SRH440 18t W44 S0614 priffOipal b0ildiffg Or use.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. The official charged with the administration and enforcement
of the zoning ordinance.
ALLEY. A secondary access way of not less than 20 feet in width dedicated to public use for
travel or transportation and affording vehicular access to abutting property.
r ^ 11 rmn �_49�_"Xnnv _Akn� use ,nd,lor s4f�lsl3afes —a
AUTO - ORIENTED COMMERCIAL FACILITY. A facility where a service is rendered or a
sales transaction is made while the patron is typically not required to exit his/her vehicle, or a
facility that includes services rendered directly on, to or for vehicles. Auto - oriented commercial
facilities include, but are not limited to drive -thru restaurants, drive -in restaurants, automated
teller machines (ATMs), drive -thru banks, drive -in movie theaters, car washes (all types), gas
stations, facilities specializing in oil changes, car repair, establishments installing car accessories,
other similar auto service facilities, and stand -alone parking lots. The sale of vehicles (new or
used) is not included within this definition.
BORROW PIT. A lot or parcel of land or part thereof used for the purpose of extracting sand,
gravel or topsoil for sale or use on other premises, and exclusive of the process of grading a lot
preparatory to the construction of a building for which application for a building permit has been
made.
Page 1 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
BUILDING. A structure intended for shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or
chattel. When separated by dividing walls without openings, each portion of such structure so
separated shall be deemed a separate building.
BUILDING, HEIGHT OF. The vertical distance measured from the grade to the highest point
of the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level
between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
BUILDING SETBACK LINE. Aline determined by the zoning district in which a lot is located
establishing the minimum allowable distance between the nearest portion of any building and the
side and rear lot lines and the right -of -way line of any street when measured perpendicularly
thereto.
CHILD CARE. Any place, home or institution which cares for young children apart from their
parents when received for regular periods of time for compensation such as kindergarten, nursery
school or class for young children that develops basic skills and social behavior by games,
exercises, toys and simple handicraft.
CIVIC BUILDING OR USE. A building or location that provides for community meetings
and /or activities including, but not limited to, City Hall, Township Hall, school administration
building, recreation center (public or private), property listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, Chamber of Commerce building, Arts Council building, library, or other public buildings
owned or operated by the city.
CLINIC. An establishment where patients are not lodged overnight, but are admitted for
examination and treatment by a group of physicians or dentists practicing medicine together.
COMMISSION. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the municipality.
CONDITIONAL USE. A use allowed in a zoning district after a permit is granted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission according to the provisions of § 153.236.
COUNCIL. The Council of the municipality.
CURB LINE. The face of a curb along a curbed public or private street.
DECKING (POOL). The concrete, cement, wood, metal, brick, or other material surrounding a
swimming pool.
DISHANTENNA. An outside accessory antenna that is linked to a receiver located on the same
lot and used for the reception of signals transmitted by stations licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission in the Radio Broadcast Services including AM, FM and TV.
DRIVEWAY. The hard paved surface of a lot that is specifically designated and reserved for the
movement of motor vehicles to and from a public or private street. This definition includes the
area from the street providing access to and from the lot and any maneuvering areas.
Page 2 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
DRIVE -IN COMMERCIAL USES. Retail or service establishments which provide a
designated place where people can drive up in automobiles and conduct the major portion of
their business without having to get out of their automobiles or where the serving of the
automobile is the major business. Drive -in commercial uses include, but need not be limited to
drive -in restaurants which prepare and/ or dispense ready to eat food or beverages and does not
provide a place for all its customers to eat inside the building or which serves ready -to -eat food
or beverages for carry out; drive -in theaters, drive -in eating and drinking places, establishments
where customers may serve themselves and may eat or drink the food, refreshments or beverages
on the premises; car washes; drive -in banks.
DWELLING, FARM. A single - family dwelling on a lot of five or more acres.
DWELLING, SINGLE - FAMILY. A building arranged or designed to be occupied by one
family, the structure having only one dwelling unit.
DWELLING, TWO - FAMILY. A building arranged or designed to be occupied by two families,
the structure having only two dwelling units with separate entrances.
DWELLING, MULTIPLE FAMILY 444 A building arranged or intended for
feur three or more families living independently of each other in separate dwelling units any two
or more . id ..:41 a pemme4q ,.444..,.44,.,. or l 4a ll an d A! ,d we lli ng ...:4., 44 d 4 1
GARAGE. An accessory building structure or an accessory part of aprincipal building structure
used primarily for the storage of passenger vehicles as an accessory use.
GARAGE, ALLEY - LOADED. A garage with vehicular access from a public or private alley or
drive typically from the rear of the property.
GARAGE, COURTYARD- STYLE. A garage with vehicular access through an enclosed or
partially enclosed pavement area that is located to the front of a principal structure typically
providing access to a side loaded garage.
GARAGE, FRONT - LOADED. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented toward
the same street right -of -way or private street as the front facade of the principal structure.
GARAGE, SIDE - LOADED. A garage with vehicular access doors primarily oriented toward
one of the side lot lines or a secondary public right -of -way or private street.
HARD SURFACED OR PAVED AREA. Includes but is not limited to patios, driveways, court-
yards, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, swimming pool decks and walkways
(the water area is excluded), and bicycle paths.
HELIPORTS. An aviation accessory devoted to the landing, takeoff and storing of helicopters.
LANDSCAPED AREA. An area that is permanently devoted and maintained to the growing of
shrubbery, grass and other plant material.
Page 3 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
LARGE FORMAT RETAIL. A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross
floor area.
LIVABLE AREA. The livable area of the principal use or structure shall be defined as the total
square footage of all rooms meeting CABO requirements for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining
purposes of a dwelling, excluding such places as attics, basements (unless finished and meeting
the aforementioned CABO requirements), garages, and similar spaces.
LOT. Includes the words "plot' and "parcel."
LOT, DEPTH OF. The average horizontal distance between front and rear lot lines.
LOT, MINIMUM. A parcel of land occupied or to be occupied by a principal structure or group
of structures and accessory structures together with such yards, open spaces, lot width and lot
area as are required by the Zoning Ordinance, and having not less than the minimum required
frontage upon a street, either shown and identified by lot number on a plat of record, or
considered as a unit of property and described by metes and bounds.
LOT LINE. A line bounding or demarcating a plot of land or ground as established by a plat of
record.
LOT WIDTH. The average horizontal distance between side lot lines.
MINOR PLAN MODIFICATION. A nominal deviation from, or clarification of the adopted
plan and /or text, provided it will neither increase the permitted density nor the potential traffic
generated, and the proposal remains consistent with the original design, land use, intent and
developer commitments of the adopted plan, and with the preferred scenario of the Community
Plan. Approval/disapproval of any request for a minor plan modification shall be determined by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of its administrative review in a planned district.
For the purpose of this section, the adopted plan and /or text refer to those documents adopted by
City Council as part of a rezoning action, including a preliminary development plan.
NO -BUILD ZONE. An open area where construction is prohibited. All structures including,
but not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios,
decks or other accessory structures, fences, antennae and basketball courts or other sport courts
are prohibited in order to preserve open space. A no -build zone is typically found along the rear
of a single - family lot. Over lot grading and the placement of underground utilities are permitted
within no -build zones.
NONCONFORMING USE. A legal use of a building and /or of land that antedates the adoption
of the zoning ordinance and does not conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which
it is located.
OPAQUENESS. The degree to which a wall, fence, structure or landscaping is solid or
impenetrable to light or vision in a generally uniform pattern over its surface.
Page 4 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
OUTDOOR SERVICE FACILITY. An area that is not fully enclosed by solid walls and a roof
and where services are rendered or goods are displayed, sold, or stored. For purposes of this
section, outdoor service facilities include, but are not limited to outdoor dining areas, restaurant
patios, outdoor storage areas, open -air markets, garden stores, and stand -alone parking lots.
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. The principal or predominant structure intended to accommodate
the principal use of any lot or parcel of land.
PRINCIPAL USE. The primary use to which the premises are devoted and the primary purpose
for which the premises exist.
SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. A commercial establishment
including adult cabaret, adult store, or adult theater primarily engaged in persons who appear
nude /semi -nude, live performances, films or other visual representations, adult booths, or sale or
display of adult material.
SHALL. Is mandatory.
STREET RIGHT -OF- WAY -LINE The dividing line between a street right -of -way and the
contiguous property.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location
on the ground, or attachment to something having permanent location on the ground, including
advertising signs, billboards, mobile homes (located for occupancy on a permanent foundation)
and other construction or erection with special function or form, except fences or walks. Includes
the word "building."
is s4l.14AE�r
SWIMMING POOL. Any confined body of water, with a rim/deck elevation less than one foot
above the existing finished grade of the site, exceeding 100 square feet in water surface area, and
18 inches in depth, designed, used, or intended to be used for swimming or bathing purposes.
TOWNHOUSE. A building consisting of a series of three or more attached or semi - detached
dwelling units, each with a ground floor and a separate ownership or condominium.
USED or OCCUPIED. As applied to any land or structure shall be construed to include the
words "intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied."
YARD, REAR. An open space between the rear line of the principal structure, exclusive of
steps, and the rear line of the lot and extending the full width of the lot and may be used for
accessory structures.
YARD, SIDE. An open, unoccupied space on the same lot with a structure between the side line
of the structure, exclusive of steps, and the side line of the lot and extending from the front line
to the rear line of the building.
Page 5 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
ZONING DISTRICT. Any section of the municipality in which zoning regulations are uniform.
ZONING ORDINANCE. This Chapter.
§ 153.074 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
(A) Purpose and Scope
(1) Accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in association with a principal
use or structure. Permitted accessory structures shall be subordinate and
proportional in area to their location. For smaller residential lots, accessory
structures are intended to be proportional in area to the size of the principal
structure. For larger residential lots, accessory structures shall be proportional to
the size of the property on which they are located. For non - residential districts,
accessory uses and structures shall be proportional to the principal use or
structure.
(2) Applicability. This section shall apply to accessory uses and structures in all
zoning districts unless otherwise provided for in the development requirements of
the District in which the property is located or the respective planned
development teat.
(3) Accessory Uses.
(a) Residential: Storage, recreation, child care, home occupations, leisure and
gardening/landscaping uses, and others as permitted by the District in
which the property is located or as determined by the Administrative
Official.
(b) Non - Residential: As permitted by the District in which the property is
located.
(4) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Residential: Garages and carports (attached and detached), sheds,
swimming pools, hot tubs, sport courts and similar facilities, gazebos,
porches /sunrooms, patios, decks, greenhouses, or similar facilities, and
other similar structures as determined by the Administrative Official.
(b) Non - Residential: Dumpster enclosures, sheds, garages /parking structures,
greenhouses, and other similar structures as determined by the
Administrative Official.
Page 6 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
(c) Temporary: Construction trailers, portable classrooms, portable non-
residential structures, special event tents, and others in accordance with
§153.097.
(d) Landscape features, including but not limited to planting beds, fountains,
and other similar features, and play structures shall not be considered
accessory structures and are therefore not subject to the regulations of this
Section.
(B) Accessory Uses and Structures in Residential Districts and Residential Planned
Development Districts
(1) Accessory uses shall comply with any applicable requirements of this Code or
approved development text.
(2) Detached accessory structures.
(a) This Section shall apply to detached accessory structures for residential
properties, including but not limited to detached garages, sheds,
greenhouses, carports, and other similar structures as determined by the
Administrative Official. "Attached," for the purpose of this section, means
that the addition is integrated visually, structurally and architecturally with
the principal structure, has an attached roof with similar design to the
principal structure, permits access between the principal structure and the
addition either internally or under the roof, and /or shares a common wall
with the principal structure or is connected to the principal structure by an
enclosed space.
For purposes of determining attachment, an enclosed space is an area
under a roof which has solid walls at least eighteen inches in height around its
entire exterior, or which is 100 percent screened, walled, or provided with
glass from floor to ceiling, so that the enclosed interior space is completely
separated from the outside space.
(b) The following shall not be counted toward the maximum permitted square
footage for detached accessory structures: fire pits, sport courts,
swimming pools, hot tubs, solar panels, kennels, attached three -season
rooms, screened porches, decks, or patios. Gazebos, trellises and arbors or
other open and unenclosed structures or similar structures that are 250
square feet in area or less, as determined by the Administrative Official,
shall not be counted toward the maximum permitted square footage.
(c) The following shall not be counted toward the number of permitted
detached accessory structures: gazebos, trellises, and arbors or other
similar structures that are 250 square feet in area or smaller; other similar
landscape features, fire pits, sport courts, swimming pools, hot tubs, solar
Page 7 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
panels, kennels, attached three - season rooms, screened porches, decks,
patios, or other similar structures as determined by the Administrative
Official.
(d) For the purposes of this §153.074(B)(2), only the gross square footage of
ground floor area shall be counted toward the maximum permitted
detached accessory structure square footage.
(e) Maximum square footage and number of detached accessory structures
Property Size
Requirements ( Cumulative)
840 sq. ft, OR 30% of the livable area of the principal building
excluding attached garages, whichever is greater. In no case
shall the height of the detached accessory structure exceed 18
Less than 1 acre
feet.
Not more than two detached accessory structures shall be
permitted.
1,000 sq. ft,. PLUS 250 sq. ft. per acre or fraction thereof over
one acre, up to a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft.
In no case shall the height of detached accessory structure
1 - 5 acres
exceed 22 feet.
Two detached accessory structures PLUS one additional
detached accessory structure per acre greater than one acre shall
be permitted. Not more than five detached accessory structures
shall be permitted.
2% of the lot area, not to exceed a cumulative square footage
for all detached accessory structures of 3,000 sq. ft.
Additional setback requirements: For any single detached
accessory structure in excess of 2,000 sq. ft setbacks are as
required by the District in which the property is located, PLUS
25 ft. for each 250 sq. ft., or fraction thereof, over 2„000 sq. ft.
Over 5 acres
AND
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter, detached
zoned R or R -1
accessory structures shall be permitted one garage door not
greater than 12 feet in height, provided that the structure is
located to the rear of the principal structure. The maximum
height for accessory structures shall not exceed that permitted
for the principal structure.
Not more than five detached accessory structures shall be
permitted.
(f) Except as may otherwise be permitted, no part of any accessory building
shall be used as a dwelling for residential purposes.
Page 8 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
(3) Accessory Structures in Multiple-Family Residential Districts
(a) Multiple family residential units shall be permitted not more than one two -
car garage per unit provided all other applicable development
requirements are met.
(b) The exterior fagade materials and architectural design of all accessory
structures shall be coordinated with those of the principal building.
(c) This section shall not prohibit accessory uses and structures typical of
multiple - family residential developments, including but not limited to
clubhouses and/or administration offices, pool houses, laundry facilities,
gatehouses, mailbox shelters, dumpster shelters or enclosures, recreational
facilities, and other similar structures as determined by the Administrative
Official, provided all applicable development requirements including but
not limited to lot coverage, setbacks, open space, and stormwater
management are met.
(d) For detached garages in multiple - family residential districts, not more than
five garage doors are permitted in a single row or plane.
(4) Garages. Attached garages shall not be counted toward the maximum permitted
square footage for accessory structures. All new and additions to existing front -
loaded attached and detached garages or garages that are visible from the street
and angled less than 60 degrees to the front lot line or street tangent line must
meet the following requirements:
(a) No single garage door opening shall be wider than 18 feet. Only one such
garage door is permitted.
(b) No combination of garage door openings shall be wider than 36 feet.
(c) Not more than two garage doors may be located on the same horizontal
plane of the principal structure. Additional garage doors must be located
on separate planes with a minimum separation of 16 inches.
(d) Garage door openings totaling 18 feet in width or less shall not make up
more than 35% of the linear distance of the front elevation nor project
more than 12 feet from the adjacent vertical wall plane. Open and
uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall plane.
(e) Garage door openings totaling more than 18 feet up to 36 feet in width
shall not make up more than 45% of the linear distance of the front
elevation nor project more than 10 feet from the adjacent vertical wall
plane. Open and uncovered porches shall not be considered a vertical wall
plane.
Page 9 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent
Purple — New Wording
CC 8/9/2010
Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
(5) Required Location in Residential Zoning Districts
(a) All accessory uses and structures, including swimming pools and
associated decking, shall be constructed within the permitted buildable
area of a lot, behind all applicable setback lines, and to the rear or side of
the principal structure.
(b) No build /no disturb zones shall remain free of all structures including, but
not limited to buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming
pools, patios, decks, or other accessory structures, fences, antennae, and
basketball courts or other sport courts. All other plat requirements shall be
met.
(6) Relationship to Principal Structure
(a) Attached and detached accessory structures that exceed 200 square feet
shall be coordinated with those of the principal structure on the lot.
(b) Attached accessory structures must conform to all regulations of this
Chapter applicable to principal structures.
(C) Residential swimming pools.
(1) Permitted types.
(a) Permanent swimming pools. Only below -grade permanent swimming
pools are permitted.
Page 10 of 13
a o
�
4Y5'n
(C) Residential swimming pools.
(1) Permitted types.
(a) Permanent swimming pools. Only below -grade permanent swimming
pools are permitted.
Page 10 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
(b) Temporary pools. Inflatable or other temporary pools are permitted
provided they have a maximum depth of 18 inches and are placed to the
side or rear of the primary structure.
(c) Hot tubs. Hot tubs are permitted accessory structures, and may be either
below or above grade, provided that they do not exceed 100 square feet in
total water surface area, or 4.5 feet in depth or height as measured from
finished grade. Hot tubs, which exceed these size and height requirements,
shall be considered swimming pools and must be placed below the
established grade. Hot tubs shall be secured with a lockable cover or shall
be entirely enclosed by a permitted €enee barrier with a self - latching and
lockable gate.
(2) Size. I th a l ulatiRn of a ,... i mm i ng peel Rr h R* t,.w as an aeeessefy s t m l+lf
squafe e4. Swimming pools shall not be considered detached accessory
structures for the purposes of calculating maximum permitted area based on the
size of the principal structure or the lot. All principal structures are permitted a
swimming pool of [ / ��c if yard space, lot coverage, and other related
development standards for the pool and deck or patio area are met.
(3) Location and setback There shall be a minimum separation of ten feet between a
swimming pool and the principal structure. Swimming pools shall not be located
within the front building setback, forward of any part of the house, or within a
required side yard, rear yard, or other restricted area of the lot (e.g., a no -build
zone). No swimming pool shall be located, designed, operated, or maintained as
to interfere unduly with the enjoyment of the property rights of surrounding
property owners. Nuisances shall be pursued according to all applicable city
ordinances.
(4) Peneixg Swimming Pool Barriers.
(a) Swimming pools located within all zoning districts shall be surrounded by
open ornamental fenees swimming pool barriers or a solid €enee
swimming pool barrier, provided the solid €enee barrier is no higher than
four feet and otherwise complies with the regulations herein and this
section.
(b) All openings, doorways and entrances into the pool area shall be equipped
with gates of equal height and material with the fence, and shall be
provided with latches and permanent locks.
(c) In residential districts, swimming pools that are nonconforming by reason
of location and setback may be enclosed by an open ornamental or solid
Page 11 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
€enee swimming pool barrier, not more than four feet high. This fetlee
Swimming pool barriers may be in addition to any other fencing that may
exist on the property. :";s 444Pe Swimming pool barriers may be located
within a required setback area, provided that the fence barrier is located at
least 10 feet from any other fence on the property or not farther than 10
feet from the edge of the pool.
(5) Accessory equipment. No swimming pool accessory equipment, including but not
limited to pumping equipment, filtering equipment, diving boards, or slides shall
be located in any required yard. All accessory equipment shall be screened with
evergreen landscaping to the maximum height of the unit. The maximum
permitted height of a diving board or slide shall be 10 feet from the established
grade, unless otherwise approved by the Administrative Official
(6) Permit required. A building permit is required for permanent swimming pools.
The following requirements are to be met:
(a) Submission of a scaled plot plan showing all necessary area, lot coverage,
setback, and yard requirements.
(b) Pools shall be graded to contain water on property for which a permit is
issued and so as not to harm adjacent property.
(c) Electrical wiring and equipment shall comply with the National Electrical
Code; an electrical permit for grounding and other electrical equipment is
required.
(d) State Health Board approval is required for community pools.
(e) Fees for a residential/private pool shall be assessed as set forth from time
to time by ordinance, per permit.
(f) Fees for commercial public pools shall be calculated under § 150.177.
(g) Swimming pool barrier details are required with the submission of a
building permit for permanent residential swimming pools. Swimming
pool barrier details shall include the type, height, design, open space
dimensions, access gates, and any required door alarms in accordance with
the Residential Building Code.
(D) Non-residential zoning districts.
(1) Accessory uses and /or structures within nonresidential zoning districts shall not
exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the principal we structure(s) unless
otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
Page 12 of 13
Black— Existing & Relocated Verbatim Wording CC 8/9/2010
Blue — Revised Wording, Same Intent Red — Modifications Requested By PZC
Purple — New Wording
PROPOSED ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
O (2) Required location in ether non - residential zoning districts or uses. In any zoning
district except a residential district, accessory uses or structures shall be on the
same lot as the principal use or structure and located subject to the development
requirements of the zoning district in which it is located.
('80 Code, § 1183.05) (Ord. 21 -70, passed 7- 13 -70; Am. Ord. 142 -99, passed 2- 22 -00; Am. Ord.
28 -05, passed 6- 20 -05; Am. Ord. 18 -07, passed 4 -9 -07; Am. Ord. 96 -07, passed 1- 22 -08)
Penalty, see § 153.999
§ 153.139 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this section, certain terms are herewith defined. When not inconsistent with
the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular number
include the plural, words in the plural number include the singular, the word "person" includes
association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation, organization, as well as an
individual; the word "structure" includes building; the word "occupied" includes arranged,
designed, or intended to be occupied; the word "used" includes arranged, designed or intended to
be used; the word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directive; the word "may" is
permissive; and the word "lot" includes plot or parcel. Other words and terms shall have the
following respective meanings:
(A) ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE. 4 o rs4qHP41Hre ,...b 40 414. pwff e i pa ,
See §
153.002 Definitions, for definitions of "Accessory Use" and "Accessory Structure ".
Page 13 of 13
MINES
O (2) Required location in ether non - residential zoning districts or uses. In any zoning
district except a residential district, accessory uses or structures shall be on the
same lot as the principal use or structure and located subject to the development
requirements of the zoning district in which it is located.
('80 Code, § 1183.05) (Ord. 21 -70, passed 7- 13 -70; Am. Ord. 142 -99, passed 2- 22 -00; Am. Ord.
28 -05, passed 6- 20 -05; Am. Ord. 18 -07, passed 4 -9 -07; Am. Ord. 96 -07, passed 1- 22 -08)
Penalty, see § 153.999
§ 153.139 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this section, certain terms are herewith defined. When not inconsistent with
the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular number
include the plural, words in the plural number include the singular, the word "person" includes
association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body, corporation, organization, as well as an
individual; the word "structure" includes building; the word "occupied" includes arranged,
designed, or intended to be occupied; the word "used" includes arranged, designed or intended to
be used; the word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directive; the word "may" is
permissive; and the word "lot" includes plot or parcel. Other words and terms shall have the
following respective meanings:
(A) ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE. 4 o rs4qHP41Hre ,...b 40 414. pwff e i pa ,
See §
153.002 Definitions, for definitions of "Accessory Use" and "Accessory Structure ".
Page 13 of 13
EXISTING CODE SECTION
§ 153.074 ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
Accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in association with a principal use or structure. The
maximum cumulative area of accessory structures in a residential zoning district, including swimming
pools, shall not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use (livable area for residential uses).
(A) Maximum permitted size of a detached garage, shed, or other storage structure. The
cumulative maximum size of a detached garage(s), shed(s), or other storage structure(s) in a residential
district shall be 720 square feet.
(B) Types of accessory uses. Swimming pools, detached garages, sheds, hot tubs, sport courts,
tennis courts, basketball courts, batting cages, gazebos, play structures with foundations, or other similar
structures as determined by the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning shall be classified as
accessory structures and shall be governed by the regulations of this chapter. Open and uncovered
porches, attached decks, or at -grade patios (including those around swimming pools) shall not be
classified as accessory structures, but shall be considered as impervious surface for the purpose of lot
coverage calculations.
(C) Residential swimming pools.
(1) Permitted types.
(a) Permanent swimming pools. Only below -grade sw immin g pools are permitted.
(b) Temporary pools. Inflatable or other temporary pools are permitted provided they have a
maximum depth of 18 inches and are placed to the side or rear of the primary structure.
(c) Hot tubs. Hot tubs are permitted accessory structures, and may be either below or above
grade, provided that they do not exceed 100 square feet in total water surface area, or 4.5 feet in depth or
height as measured from finished grade. Hot tubs, which exceed these size and height. requirements,
shall be considered swimming pools and must be placed below the established grade. Hot tubs shall be
secured with a lockable cover or shall be entirely enclosed by a permitted fence with a self - latching and
lockable gate.
(2) Size. In the calculation of a swimming pool or hot tub as an accessory structure, only the
water surface area of a swimming pool shall be included. In all cases, the maximum surface area of a
residential swimming pool shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. All principle structures are permitted a
swimming pool of 500 square feet if yard space, lot coverage, and other related development standards
are met.
(3) Location and setback. There shall be a minimum separation of ten feet between a swimming
pool and the principal structure. Swimming pools shall not be located within the front building setback,
forward of any part of the house, or within a required side yard, rear yard, or other restricted area of the
lot (e.g., a no -build zone). No swimming pool shall be located, designed, operated, or maintained as to
interfere unduly with the enjoyment of the property rights of surrounding property owners. Nuisances
shall be pursued according to all applicable city ordinances.
(4) Fencing.
(a) Swimming pools located within all zoning districts shall be surrounded by open
10 -021 ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
EXISTING CODE SECTION
ornamental fences or a solid fence, provided the solid fence is no higher than four feet and otherwise
complies with the regulations herein and this section.
(b) All openings, doorways and entrances into the pool area shall be equipped with gates of
equal height and material with the fence, and shall be provided with latches and permanent locks.
(c) In residential districts, swimming pools that are nonconforming by reason of location and
setback may be enclosed by an open ornamental or solid fence, not more than four feet high. This fence
may be in addition to any other fencing that may exist on the property. This fence may be located within
a required setback area, provided that the fence is located at least 10 feet from any other fence on the
property or not farther than 10 feet from the edge of the pool.
(5) Accessory equipment. No swimming pool accessory equipment, including but not limited to
pumping equipment, filtering equipment, diving boards, or slides shall be located in any required yard.
All accessory equipment shall be screened with evergreen landscaping to the maximum height of the
unit. The maximum permitted height of a diving board or slide shall be 10 feet from the established
grade, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning.
(6) Permit required. A building permit is required for permanent swimming pools. The
following requirements are to be met:
(a) Submission of a scaled plot plan showing all necessary area, lot coverage, setback, and
yard requirements.
(b) Pools shall be graded to contain water on property for which a permit is issued and so as
not to harm adjacent property.
(c) Electrical wiring and equipment shall comply with the National Electrical Code; an
electrical permit for grounding and other electrical equipment is required.
(d) State Health Board approval is required for community pools.
(e) Fees for a residential/private pool shall be assessed as set forth from time to time by
ordinance, per permit.
(0 Fees for commercial public pools shall be calculated under § 150.177
(D) Non - residential zoning districts. Accessory uses and/or structures within nonresidential
zoning districts shall not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the principal use.
(E) Required location in residential zoning district.
(1) All accessory structures, including swimming pools and associated decking, shall be
constructed within the permitted buildable area of a lot, behind all applicable setback lines, and to the
rear or side of the principal structure.
(2) No build/no disturb zones shall remain free of all structures including, but not limited to
buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, sheds, swimming pools, patios, decks or other accessory
structures, fences, antennae and basketball courts or other sport courts. All other plat requirements shall
be met.
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
- - Accessory Uses and Structures
EXISTING CODE SECTION
(F) Required location in other zoning districts. In any zoning district except a residential district,
accessory uses or structures shall be on the same lot as the principal use or structure and located subject
to the development requirements of the zoning district in which it is located.
('80 Code, § 1183.05) (Ord. 21 -70, passed 7- 13 -70; Am. Ord. 142 -99, passed 2- 22 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -05,
passed 6- 20 -05; Am. Ord. 18 -07, passed 4 -9 -07; Am. Ord. 96 -07, passed 1- 22 -08) Penalty, see §
153.999
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
EXISTING CODE SECTION
§ 153.139 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this section, certain terms are herewith defined. When not
inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in
the singular number include the plural, words in the plural number include the singular,
the word "person" includes association, firm, partnership, trust, governmental body,
corporation, organization, as well as an individual; the word "structure" includes
building; the word "occupied" includes arranged, designed, or intended to be occupied;
the word "used" includes arranged, designed or intended to be used; the word "shall" is
always mandatory and not merely directive; the word "may" is permissive; and the word
"lot" includes plot or parcel. Other words and terms shall have the following respective
meanings:
(A) ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE A use or structure subordinate to the
principal use or building on a lot and serving a purpose customarily incidental thereto.
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
Case Summary
Agenda Item 3
Case Number 10 -021 ADM
Request Zoning Code Amendment
Requires recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission to City
Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Applicant Terry Foegler, Manager, City of Dublin.
Case Manager Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. (614) 410 -4656; rray @dublin.oh.us
Proposal This is a request for review and recommendation for modifications to Sections
153.002, 153.074, and 153.139(A) of the Dublin Zoning Code to amend the
regulations for accessory uses and structures. The proposed Code
modifications require review and recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which will be forwarded to City Council for final
consideration.
Planning
Recommendation Approval.
In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment ensures that accessory uses
and structures remain proportional and subordinate to the principal structure
and to lot size for larger parcels. The proposed modifications clarify several
critical terms and regulations in the existing accessory uses and structures
section of the Zoning Code. Planning recommends approval to City Council
for the amendment.
Update
May 20, 2010
PZC Meeting The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed Code
amendment regarding accessory uses and structures at their May 20, 2010
meeting. The Commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed
amendments, particularly the provisions that ensure that accessory structures
remain proportional to lot size for larger lots, rather than limiting accessory
structures to a percentage of the size of the principal structure for all lots,
regardless of size or zoning district.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Report
CITY OF DPW IN .
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Land Use and
Long Range Manning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Zoning Code Amendment: Accessory Uses and Structures
Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600
Fax: 614- 410 -4747
Web Sile: www.dublln.oh.us
Case Summary
Agenda Item 3
Case Number 10 -021 ADM
Request Zoning Code Amendment
Requires recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission to City
Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Applicant Terry Foegler, Manager, City of Dublin.
Case Manager Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. (614) 410 -4656; rray @dublin.oh.us
Proposal This is a request for review and recommendation for modifications to Sections
153.002, 153.074, and 153.139(A) of the Dublin Zoning Code to amend the
regulations for accessory uses and structures. The proposed Code
modifications require review and recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which will be forwarded to City Council for final
consideration.
Planning
Recommendation Approval.
In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment ensures that accessory uses
and structures remain proportional and subordinate to the principal structure
and to lot size for larger parcels. The proposed modifications clarify several
critical terms and regulations in the existing accessory uses and structures
section of the Zoning Code. Planning recommends approval to City Council
for the amendment.
Update
May 20, 2010
PZC Meeting The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed Code
amendment regarding accessory uses and structures at their May 20, 2010
meeting. The Commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed
amendments, particularly the provisions that ensure that accessory structures
remain proportional to lot size for larger lots, rather than limiting accessory
structures to a percentage of the size of the principal structure for all lots,
regardless of size or zoning district.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, June 10, 2010 1 Page 2 of 4
FACTS
Summary of
Modifications The Commissioners discussed several modification to the proposed Zoning
Code text. The requested modifications include:
• Clarifying the terms related to determining whether an accessory structure
is considered attached or detached, deleting definitions for "attached
accessory structure," "habitable space," and "livable space" to simplify
the distinction between attached and detached accessory structures,
and providing additional explanation of what is considered "enclosed" for
the purposes of accessory uses and structures;
• Requiring gazebos, arbors, trellises, and other similar structures that
exceed 250 square feet in area to be included in the detached
accessory structure size limitation requirements;
• Expanding the number of permitted detached accessory structures for
residential properties based on lot size;
• Modifying the provisions for accessory structures in multiple - family
residential districts to ensure that structures commonly associated with
these developments are permitted; and
• Minor grammatical modifications and language clarifications.
For this meeting packet, Planning included all of Code Section 153.002,
Definitions, for reference. In addition to the modifications requested by the
Commission summarized above, Planning also modified Section 153.074 (B)
(4) to clarify language dealing with the appearance of attached garages.
Since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Planning discussed the
regulations concerning the appearance of all front - loading garages visible
from the right -of -way, instead of only attached front - loading garages. This
section was modified to include all front - loading garages, since the overall
objective is to minimize the appearance of garage doors and maintain
aesthetics from the right -of -way.
Facts
Case Background At the April 26, 2010 City Council meeting, Council directed Land Use and
Long Range Planning to prepare an amendment to the provisions of Code
Section 153.074 governing accessory uses and structures. Council requested
that Planning prepare regulations that would allow flexibility to account for
the potential for larger properties to have accessory structures that were
proportionate to the size of the property. Council also expressed concerns
about the differential treatment that attached and detached accessory
structures receive.
Code History The accessory uses and structures section of the Zoning Code (Section
153.074) has been amended four times since the Ordinance was adopted in
1970.
• 2000 Established size limitations for attached and detached accessory
uses and structures and created specific regulations for swimming pools in
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, June 10, 2010 1 Page 3 of 4
FACTS
residential districts. This amendment also required accessory structures to
be located within the buildable area of the lot, rather than allowing some
encroachment into required setbacks.
2005 Required that No Build Zones and No Disturb Zones no longer
prohibit play structures.
2007 Additional restrictions for swimming pools moved from the Building
Code to the Zoning Code.
2008 Modified the fence requirements for swimming pools.
Existing Regulations The Dublin Zoning Code currently limits the cumulative area of all accessory
structures, including swimming pools, to 30% of the gross floor area of the
principal use or structure. This regulation attempts to limit the size of all
accessory uses and structures based on their relationship to the principal
structure, rather than lot proportion or yard coverage. However, the existing
regulation significantly limits the size of an accessory structure when a
moderate -sized principal structure is on a large lot.
Allowing larger accessory structures is appropriate for greater lot areas where
accessory structures are less obtrusive to adjacent land owners. On smaller
lots, where very large or numerous accessory structures could be more
obtrusive, requiring accessory structures to be proportional to the principal
structure may be more appropriate. In Dublin, where lot sizes range fairly
significantly throughout the city, a combination of these strategies is most
practical.
Detached accessory structures are further limited by the Code to 720 square
feet in gross floor area, which was included in the 2000 Code modification
because it was believed to be large enough to accommodate a typical
three -car garage. The City's experience over the past 10 years has indicated
that 720 square feet may be too small for a functional three -car garage, and
did not account for other accessory structures, such as small sheds or other
similar structures. Additionally, since the Zoning Code does not clearly define
the distinction between "attached" versus "detached" accessory uses and
structures the administration of the Code has proven difficult. Since only
detached structures are regulated, clear definitions for each type are
necessary.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, June 10, 2010 1 Page 4 of 4
ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION
Analysis
Case Procedure Code Section 153.232(6) grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the ability to
review "amendments to the zoning map and to the zoning ordinance and
recommendation of action to Council." The Commission should review the
modifications, provide input where desired, and make its recommendation to be
forwarded to City Council for final review and approval.
Recommendation: Approval
Code Amendments In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment allows greater flexibility for
accessory structures, accounts for a variety of lot sizes, and ensures that accessory
uses and structures remain proportional and subordinate to the principal structure,
and to lot size for larger parcels. The proposed modifications will also clarify several
critical terms and unclear regulations in the existing accessory uses and structures
section of the Zoning Code. Planning recommends approval to City Council of the
amendment.
Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo
5800 Shier -Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016
CITY OF DLBLIN Phone: 614 - 410 -4600 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4747
TO: Members of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
DATE: June 10, 2010
RE: Zoning Code Modification — Accessory Uses and Structures —
Swimming Pool Barriers
INITIATED BY: Rachel S. Ray, Planner
SUMMARY
Land Use and Long Range Planning and Building Standards recently modified the policy
for building permits for swimming pools in residential districts. Currently, a building
permit is required to construct a permanent swimming pool or hot tub, while a fence permit
is required prior to installation of the fence, or swimming pool barrier, surrounding
swimming pools.
Building Standards now requires submission of a swimming pool barrier detail with the
building permit application for a permanent swimming pool or hot tub. A separate fence
permit will no longer be required; however, swimming pool barriers are still required to be
consistent with the Zoning Code in terms of height and design.
As a result, Planning recommends a minor modification to the swimming pool portion of
the proposed Accessory Uses and Structures Section [Zoning Code Section 153.074 (C)] to
reinforce the distinction between fences, which require a fence permit, and swimming pool
barriers, which are now part of the building permit review for permanent swimming pools
and hot tubs regulated by the Residential Building Code.
PROPOSED CODE MODIFICATION
Planning has eliminated references to swimming pool "fences," proposing "swimming
pool barriers" instead, and the swimming pool barrier details were added to the building
permit requirements for permanent swimming pools and hot tubs.
CITY OF DUBLIN.
Land Use and
Long Range Manning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Report
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600
Fax: 614-410-4747
Web Site: wwwAublin.oh.us
Case Summary
Agenda Item 2
Case Title
Case Number
Request
Applicant
Case Manager
Accessory Uses and Structures
103810G[071VA1
Zoning Code Amendment
Requires recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission to City
Council under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Terry Foegler, Manager, City of Dublin.
Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. (614) 410 -4656; rray @dublin.oh.us
Proposal This is a request for review and recommendation for modifications to Sections
153.002, 153.074, and 153.139(A) of the Dublin Zoning Code to amend the
regulations for accessory uses and structures. The proposed Code
modifications require review and recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which will be forwarded to City Council for final
consideration.
Planning
Recommendation Approval.
In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment ensures that accessory uses
and structures remain proportional and subordinate to the principal structure
and to lot sizes for larger parcels. The proposed modifications clarify several
critical terms and regulations in the existing accessory uses and structures
section of the Zoning Code. Planning recommends approval to City Council
for the amendment.
Facts
Case Background At the April 26, 2010 City Council meeting, Council directed Land Use and
Long Range Planning to prepare an amendment to the provisions of Code
Section 153.074 governing accessory uses and structures. Council requested
that Planning prepare regulations that would allow additional flexibility to
account for the potential for larger properties to have accessory structures
that were proportionate to the size of the property. Council also expressed
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, May 20, 2010 1 Page 2 of 7
FACTS
concerns about the differential treatment that attached and detached
accessory structures receive.
Code History The accessory uses and structures section of the Zoning Code (Section
153.074) has been amended four times since the Ordinance was adopted in
1970.
2000 Established size limitations for attached and detached accessory
uses and structures and created specific regulations for swimming pools in
residential districts. This amendment also required accessory structures to
be located within the buildable area of the lot, rather than allowing some
encroachment into required setbacks.
2005 Required that No Build Zones and No Disturb Zones no longer
prohibit play structures.
• 2007 Additional restrictions for swimming pools moved from the Building
Code to the Zoning Code.
• 2008 Modified the fence requirements for swimming pools.
General information Nearly all communities regulate some elements of accessory buildings.
Accessory buildings, by definition, are only permitted in conjunction with a
principal use. (The exception to this is rural areas for agricultural buildings;
"Right to Farm" related legislation places some limits on the ability of
communities to regulate buildings in active agricultural use.) Additionally, the
"accessory" element usually involves some degree of subordination to the
principal use, which can be accomplished by restrictions on use and /or size
limitations. Three elements that are most typically regulated include number,
mass (size and height), and location.
Number Limitation on the total number of detached accessory buildings is common
(attached accessory buildings do not usually count toward such limits). If a
limit on the number of buildings is not desired, a limitation on the cumulative
square footage of detached accessory buildings can be used. There may
also be limits on a single building; for example, the regulation may state a
maximum total area but restrict individual buildings to a portion of the total
area.
Many regulations permit a smaller structure, commonly referred to as a
"shed," which can be either included or excluded from the total number
permitted. Approaches vary on these regulations, but the minimum regulated
size is often based on the requirement for a building permit, which can be
required either by size or value.
Size Size limitations, while common, are strictly a community standard. As noted
above, this limitation may either be a total size of all permitted accessory
buildings, or a size limitation on each allowed building, up to a total. Size
determinations are often set in one of several ways:
Absolute size This regulation sets a fixed square footage for a single
building or total of all buildings. This method works best in communities
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, May 20, 2010 1 Page 3 of 7
FACTS
that have a high degree of lot uniformity, where a single number would
work in nearly all residential settings. Dublin's Zoning Code currently limits
all detached accessory structures to 720 square feet (about the size of a
two -car garage).
2. Lot proportion In areas with a wide variety of lot sizes, a size limit based
on lot area can work well. The regulation sets up a scale of accessory
building sizes related to the area of the lot; i.e., the larger the lot, the
larger the permitted accessory building area. The scale may either be by
percentage of lot or by square footage.
3. Principal building relationship As noted, the concept of subordination is
important in accessory building regulations. This method of regulation
limits the size of the accessory building to some proportion of the size of
the principal building. The limit may be based on either the size of the
footprint of the principal building on the ground, or on its square footage
(gross floor area or livable area). Dublin's Code limits the square footage
of all accessory structures on a lot to 30% of the livable area of the
principal building.
Yard coverage Another method is to regulate the size of an accessory
building in proportion to a specified area of the lot. This is distinguished
from the lot proportion method in that the size limit is based strictly on
occupied yard area. For example, this regulation may state that the
accessory building can take up not more than a certain percentage of
the area of the rear yard (defined as the area between the rear of the
principal building and the rear lot line, across the full width of the lot).
Height Height restrictions may include a specific limit (16 feet, for example), or
indicate that the accessory building not exceed the height of any other
building allowed in the district. The method of measuring building height is
sometimes different than principal buildings. Most principal building heights
are measured according to the roof structure. Some regulations measure
accessory building heights to the tallest portion, usually to ensure that the
mass of the building remains subordinate to the principal building.
Height may also depend on the size of the building. Where significantly larger
accessory buildings are permitted, allowed heights must be adjusted,
especially to avoid unattractive flat or nearly flat roofed structures. Door
heights are also important. A typical garage door height of 7 or 8 feet would
limit the use of larger accessory buildings for storage of other equipment, such
as recreational vehicles.
Location 8, Setbacks Nearly all regulations prohibit detached accessory buildings in the front yard
(or at a minimum the required front yard). One exception sometimes used is
for extraordinarily deep lots, but even these can be required to submit for a
variance.
As with main buildings, side yard setbacks are generally the most important
restriction for accessory buildings. While some regulations will permit
accessory buildings to be closer to the lot line than main buildings, few will
permit them on the lot line. The setback measuring point is also important; the
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, May 20, 2010 1 Page 4 of 7
FACTS
setback should be specified as either from the drip edge of the eave, or the
foundation /wall of the building. The eave line measurement is preferred
where side yard setbacks are smaller.
Similarly, rear yard setback requirements vary. Historically, rear yard setbacks
were either very minimal or zero. This was to account for the widespread use
of alleys as the primary access to a garage. The alley was used as the
maneuvering area, which permitted the garage to be at or only slightly set
back from the rear lot line. Another common provision, especially where
larger buildings are permitted, is a variable setback; i.e. the larger the
building, the greater the required setback.
Detached accessory buildings also require separation from the principal
building. A 10 -foot separation is common as it is related to fire code
requirements for fire wall protection between buildings. If not properly
separated, the issue of attachment is raised since once a detached
accessory building is connected to a principal building (as specified by the
regulation) the setbacks applicable to the principal building apply.
Other Issues Other regulations applying to accessory buildings can include aesthetic
requirements that ensure a degree of compatibility with materials, color, and
design with the principal building; and restrictions on residential use of an
accessory building, unless specifically designed and permitted for that use
(such as accessory dwellings or "granny flats ").
Conclusion There are few, if any, consistent requirements or examples of accessory
building regulations that are ideal for a community. The decisions require
consideration of the City's general development philosophy, community
character, diversity, and general acceptability.
Existing Regulations The Dublin Zoning Code currently limits the cumulative area of all accessory
structures, including swimming pools, to 30% of the gross floor area of the
principal use or structure. This regulation attempts to limit the size of all
accessory uses and structures based on their relationship to the principal
structure, rather than lot proportion or yard coverage. However, where a
modestly -size principal structure is present on a large lot, the size of an
accessory structure is significantly limited by the existing regulation.
Larger accessory structures may be more appropriate for larger lots since the
greater lot area makes accessory structures less obtrusive to adjacent land
owners. For smaller lots, where very large or numerous accessory structures will
be more obtrusive to adjacent property owners, requiring accessory structures
to be proportional to the principal structure may be more appropriate. In
Dublin, where lot sizes range fairly significantly throughout the city, a
combination of these strategies may be most practical.
Detached accessory structures are further limited by the Code to 720 square
feet in gross floor area, which was included in the 2000 Code modification
because it was believed to be large enough to accommodate a typical
three -car garage. The City's experience over the past 10 years has indicated
that 720 square feet may be too small for a functional three -car garage.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, May 20, 2010 1 Page 5 of 7
FACTS
Additionally, the Zoning Code does not clearly define the distinction between
"attached" versus "detached" accessory uses and structures. Since only
detached structures are regulated, clear definitions for each type are
necessary.
Proposed
Amendments As a result of these issues, Planning has prepared several modifications to
Code Section 153.074 regarding accessory uses and structures to provide
clearer regulations for attached and detached accessory structures, and to
base permitted square footage on proportionality to the principal structure for
smaller parcels and to lot size for larger parcels. Other minor amendments are
proposed to the sections regarding swimming pools and non - residential
accessory uses and structures.
These amendments are clarified by modifying Code Section 153.002,
Definitions, to include amended definitions for certain relevant terms, and
Code Section 153.139(A), which includes a definition of "Accessory Use or
Structure," to maintain consistency through the Code.
Square Footage Applicability The proposed modification applies to detached accessory
structures, such as unattached garages, sheds, storage structures, and
greenhouses, and limits them to two per lot. Attached accessory structures,
including attached garages, three - season rooms, screened porches, and
similar structures, are considered part of the principal structure and are
regulated accordingly. These and other structures such as sport courts,
swimming pools, gazebos, trellises, and other similar structures are limited by
lot coverage and setback requirements.
Maximum Square Footage The Code currently measures gross floor area for
the maximum accessory building size. This amendment, in order to be
consistent with the massing proportion method, proposes to measure only the
ground floor square footage toward the maximum permitted square footage
area.
The amendment would require that detached accessory structures on lots
under one acre remain subordinate in size to the principal structure. However,
because 720 square feet has proven to be rather small in application,
Planning recommends that 840 square feet or 30% of the livable area of the
principal structure, whichever is greater, be permitted. This would account for
a reasonably sized detached garage and up to one additional storage shed.
For larger lots (lots that are one acre or greater, but less than five acres), it is
proposed to have a base square footage of 1,000 square feet, and permit up
to another 250 square feet for every acre or fraction thereof, up to a
maximum of 2,000 square feet. For residential lots of five acres or greater,
Planning recommends a maximum square footage of 2% of the lot area, not
to exceed a cumulative maximum of 3,000 square feet. Further, for any
individual accessory structure exceeding 2,000 square feet, an additional 25-
foot setback is required from all property lines.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, May 20, 2010 1 Page 6 of 7
FACTS & ANALYSIS
Height Accessory structure massing will be limited by the height restrictions
proposed. For lots less than one acre, height of accessory structures would not
exceed 18 feet. Accessory structures on lots that are at least one acre but less
than five acres are limited to 22 feet in height.
Attached Garages Attached garages are not separately addressed in the Zoning Code. While
they are considered an accessory use because their primary function is the
storage of motor vehicles in association with the residence, regulation should
be distinguished from detached accessory structures because they often
form a critical functional and aesthetic component of the principal structure.
The Residential Appearance Standards (Code Section 153.190) include
regulations for the appearance of attached garages. However, this section
only applies to homes that were constructed after the date this section was
adopted (July 2, 2007). Property owners that wish to add on to existing
garages for homes built prior to the effective date would not be regulated by
that Code Section. Planning recommends that the requirements that are in
the Residential Appearance Standards for front - loading garages be added to
this Accessory Uses and Structures Code modification.
Swimming Pools The existing Code requires that the area of swimming pools be included in the
total square footage permitted for accessory uses and structures for
residential properties. Because swimming pools and detached accessory
structures are very different in nature, Planning recommends calculating the
permitted square footage for swimming pools separately, using lot coverage,
setbacks, and other applicable restrictions to regulate size and location.
Definitions Planning recommends clarifying several terms pertaining to accessory uses
and structures by modifying Code Section 153.002, Definitions. The definitions
currently include "Accessory Building," "Accessory Use," and "Attached
Accessory Use /Structure," however additional definitions are needed to
clearly distinguish the differences between accessory uses and structures, as
well as attached and detached accessory structures. Planning recommends
adding or modifying the following terms: "Accessory Use," "Accessory
Structure," "Attached Accessory Structure," "Detached Accessory Structure,"
"Habitable Space," "Livable Space," and "Principal Structure."
Analysis
Case Procedure Code Section 153.232(B) grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the
ability to review "amendments to the zoning map and to the zoning
ordinance and recommendation of action to Council." The Commission
should review the modifications, provide input where desired, and make its
recommendation to be forwarded to City Council for final review and
approval.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 10 -021 ADM I Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
Thursday, May 20, 2010 1 Page 7 of 7
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation: Approval
Code Amendments In Planning's opinion, the proposed amendment allows greater flexibility for
accessory structures, accounts for a variety of lot sizes, and ensures that
accessory uses and structures remain proportional and subordinate to the
principal structure, and to lot size for larger parcels. The proposed
modifications will also clarify several critical terms and unclear regulations in
the existing accessory uses and structures section of the Zoning Code.
Planning recommends approval to City Council of the amendment.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
CITY Or D01 IN,
Land Use and JUNE 10, 2010
Long Range Planning
SBOD Shie,Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
Phone / TDD: 61441(4601)
Fax: 61441(4747
Web Site: w .dubM.ah.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
10- 021ADM
Proposal: Modifications to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.074, 153.139
(A) regarding definitions and requirements for Accessory Uses and
Structures, primarily for residential districts.
Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of approval of
amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning
Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Applicant: Terry Foegler, Manager, City of Dublin.
Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To forward a recommendation for approval to City Council because this Code
Amendment application allows greater flexibility for accessory structures, accounts for a variety
of lot sizes, and ensures that accessory uses and structures remain proportional and subordinate
to the principal structure, and to lot size for larger parcels with one condition:
1) That the definition of "detached accessory structure" be eliminated and the "enclosure"
language be relocated with the language for attached accessory structures.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This Code Amendment was approved and a recommendation for approval will be
forwarded to City Council.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
ache] S. Ray
Planner I
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 10, 2010 —Meeting Minutes
Page 26 of 39
would rath 7"see it on the other side of the exit lane in some fashion so that the opaqueness is
increase between both drive thru banes and the buffer is closer towards the residences,.
` X
Majeed confirmed thatXr Taylor was comforta le with the end piece being eliminated, and
some kind of architectural feature being created o ie south elevation.
Ms. Amorose G omes added that ma e arched wall could go'farther down, with glass
inside those a es, but in not nece arily a roof.
Mr. W ter summarized that the ommission's suggestion.was to take the roof off and make that
a d* connected out - building t t buffered it. He said it needed a terminus, and it floes not have to
look like this, and does have to be attached to the building. He said he liked that what was
on the plan provided s metry to that side.
Mr. Majeed sa' they were following the ,original direction that thy- Commission wanted to keep
the o:amb all sign of the existing centgr' He said if they can de�paft from it, so be it. / j
Ms. said v hatever was: designed should not hv thi
angs that drivers will ;fin into and e
y� ow pylons as are showipg'up all over Dublin.
Ms. Amorose Groo es asked how /thhea 'eants wo uld like the
application.
Mr. Hale id they would like to d k in complianc ith
return th something the Com ' sion will approve.
dote and Motion:
Mr. Taylor made t motion to table this ezoning/Prelimin
Development Pl onditional Use applicatio at the request of the
Mr. Zimme an seconded the motion /
what they heard
The was as follows: !Hardt, yes; Ms. Kra yes; Mr. Walter,
omes, yes; Mr. Zimme an, yes; and Mr. Taylor es. (Tabled 6 — 0.)
Ms. Amorose Groom s called a recess at 9:30 p.m.
to handle
and
Plan/Final
Amorose
3. Accessory Uses and Structures Code Amendment
10- 021ADM .
Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this proposed Code Amendment regarding accessory uses
and structures. She explained that the Commission had reviewed this Code Amendment at the
previous Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and that the draft language had been revised
to reflect their comments.
Rachel Ray pointed out that a memorandum had been distributed to the Commissioners this
evening. She summarized the memo, explaining that Land Use and Long Range Planning and
Building Standards had been in the process clarifying the policies for reviewing building permits
for swimming pools. She explained that `pool barriers' are currently referred to as `fences' in this
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 27 of 39
Zoning Code section; however, Planning and Building would prefer to refer to them only as
`pool barriers' to provide distinction between pool barriers and fences. She said that pool barriers
are now reviewed as part of the building permit for swimming pools, instead of requiring a
separate fence permit. She hoped this minor modification could be included with this Code
amendment.
Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the Commissioners had no issue with including the
modification. She noted that the amendments requested at the May 20 meeting had been
indicated on the revised document, and she asked if the Commissioners had any additional
comments.
Amy Kramb pointed out that there was no definition included for an "Enclosed Space" as had
been previously discussed. Ms. Ray explained that it was defined in the Code section related to
accessory uses and structures instead of in the definition, where it would apply to the entire
Zoning Code.
Ms. Kramb referred to the definition, Dwelling, Multiple family, and said it did not cover
multiple condominiums, and that the definition indicates that they must share a common entrance
or hall to be considered "multiple- family." She said that unless that was the intent, `...any two or
more provided with a common entrance or hall' should be deleted from the definition.
John Hardt asked if the intent was to cover three or more units. Ms. Ray said the intent was to
include all attached units where there are three or more, and agreed to make the suggested
deletion.
Mr. Hardt referred to Section 153.074 Accessory Uses and Structures, which includes a
definition for a detached accessory structure. He said that the Code goes on to define attached
accessory structures as well. Ms. Kramb said she suggested striking it last time.
Ms. Ray said that Planning was proposing to include both because it would help make clear what
was intended to be considered "attached." She pointed out that there is a provision that allows a
determination to be made whether the "attached" structure is truly architecturally integrated with
the principal structure, which is required in order to be considered "attached."
Mr. Hardt said he had found that anytime there is a definition for one term, and its opposite is
also provided, somewhere along the way someone will invent a way to come up with something
in between those definitions. He suggested defining one term or the other, and if something does
not meet that definition, then it will have to be the other one. Ms. Kramb agreed.
Steve Langworthy said that Planning debated that point, and he had researched these definitions
in other Zoning Codes. He said the reason both definitions were provided was to prevent one
definition being taken and stretched too far from its original intent. He pointed out that there had
been numerous problems with the issue of what constituted "detached" versus "attached."
Ms. Kramb asked if the phrase "integrated visually, structurally, and architecturally" meant that
all elements must be present, and if even one of those aspects was missing, then it would not be
considered "attached." She was concerned that would be too open and debatable without
definitions.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 10, 2010 —Meeting Mumtes
Page 28 of 39
Ms. Ray said that visually, structurally, and architecturally were not defined because it was
intended that when plans are reviewed, Planning and Building will have to make a determination
about whether the structure appears to look like it is an attached or a detached structure. She
presented two examples showing what would be considered detached and attached accessory
structures based on this provision. Ms. Ray added that the distinction also required the attached
accessory structure either share a wall with the principal structure or be attached by enclosed
space, as defined in the proposed Code section.
Mr. Hardt was concerned that that was not how the language read. Ms. Ray referred to (B) (2) (a)
An accessory structure shall be considered detached if it does not share a common wall with the
principal structure or it is not connected to the principal structure by an enclosed space.
Mr. Langworthy agreed to eliminate the Attached definition and leave it open to interpretation.
Mr. Hardt said he was fine with some definition, but he thought only one or the other should be
defined.
Mr. Langworthy said Planning would rather define "detached."
Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that there would be a "detached" definition, and the
"attached" definition would be struck.
Richard Taylor said from his own experience, what an applicant is generally trying to do is to get
to attached, because he has more flexibility in what can be built, since attached accessory
structures would not be limited in terms of square footage or number of accessory structures
permitted. He said the definition needs to be really clear because a high standard must be met in
order for a structure to be considered "attached," and if that standard is not met, then it is
automatically considered "detached."
Mr. Taylor said if Planning was trying to define when something becomes "attached," and if it
does not meet those criteria, it is considered "detached," in order to eliminate the problem that
has occurred on several occasions over the years where people try to "attach" structures in
minimal ways. He said if it were him and he would have to visually, structurally, and
architecturally attach a structure in order for it to be considered "attached," he might say, fine,
just leave it detached. Mr. Walter suggested they just define "attached." Mr. Hardt agreed.
Mr. Langworthy said they could include the "enclosed space" language into the section where
"attached" is defined. Ms. Kramb said that would work.
Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the only change to the proposed amendment presented
tonight would be that "attached" would be defined, but not "detached."
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments concerning this application. [There were no
comments.]
Motion and Vote
Kevin Walter made the motion, seconded by Todd Zimmerman, to forward a recommendation
for approval to City Council because this Code Amendment allows greater flexibility for
accessory structures, accounts for a variety of lot sizes, and ensures that accessory uses and
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 10, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 29 of 39
structures remain proportional and subordinate to the principal structure, and to lot size for larger
parcels, with one condition:
1) That the definition of "detached accessory structure" be eliminated and the
"enclosure" language be relocated with the language for attached accessory
structures.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr.
Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Approved 6 — 0.)
4. Mo n in Residential D'sfricts Code Amendment
- 022ADM
C ' Amorose Groom ed this proposed Code A ndment regarding model .h{mes in
sidential districts. She ex lamed that the Commissio ad reviewed this Code Ai4ndment at
the previous Planning Ana Zoning Commission m mg and that the draft language had been
revised to reflect tjirr comments. She asked ' any of the Commissio members had any
comments on the evised language.
Kevin W n lfer referred to Page 5 of draft Code language, 153 3 (D) (2) (v) and recalled the
disc to at the previous meeti pKabout removing the land ping associated with model'home
sx ns placed in the front yarg of model homes. He re ested that associated landscaping be
added to the text. Ms. R said it would be added.
John Zackn edged that the Commiss' requested the Code la nguage in Section 153.073
(D) (observed that in the ddle of that paragraph, Parking lots shall not extend behination or project cu d of the front elevation of the model home, sound °d
like a t for typical mes, they might end up requiring something that would be
d' ensionally impossible t uild, which he thought' was okay. He asked -the other
ommissioners if that w also their objective, or if -they wanted the pavemept'to be able to
encroach in one direct or the other. i
Ms. Amorosefifoomes said she did not think it should be in the front . Hardt agreed and said
that if add' 'onal pavement were permitted to the rear, then more, avement would result farther
back m the street, which would be more intrusive, particularly on nearby ho e9 and
bds. He explained that -f &re was a model home at was 30 feet deep, which. is typical,
en there might only be a�30 -foot deep parking lot, w 'ch would be about six par g spaces.
Mr. Hardt said he id not want parking lots to 6too easy to build. He saorf they all agreed that
keeping the p ing within the building fo print and not in the front back yards is intuitively
the right a oach and if in some case , it would not work, he wa okay with it. He said he ' t
wanted make sure they agreed, said that builders would ve to think about this wh they
decide which model home to t on the lot. He noted at this would basically b overflow
arking, and they did not n to provide many parkin paces.
Mr. Hardt said he assumed side yard setbacks still applied. Ms. Ray said they would.
7 t
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF DUBLIN,. RECORD OF ACTION
Land Use and
Long Range Manning MAY 20, 2010
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone/ TDD: 614- 410 -4600
Fax: 614-410-4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
Creating a Legacy
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Accessory Uses and Structures
10- 021ADM
Code Amendment
Proposal: Modifications to Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.074, 153.139
(A) regarding definitions and requirements for Accessory Uses and
Structures, primarily for residential districts.
Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of approval of
amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning
Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Applicant: Terry Foegler, Manager, City of Dublin.
Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To table this proposed Code Amendment.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This proposed Code Amendment was tabled after it was reviewed and edited by
the Commission.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
chel S. Ray
Planner I
�f.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 17
Motion 42 nd Vote — Conditionalys'e
Mr. T or made a motion to approve this Conditional USe because it meets the criteria and
re �ements, with two conditions: j
1) That the pfili furniture be stored off s'tf e during offseason, frgifallovember 1 until
April l ;,arid , '
2) ThtiSe patio amenities and fefice be removed when tenant vacates
s ce, unless the space is cupied by a compatible e that would utilize then;
patio area.
IV Zimmerman seconded emotion.
Mr. Mikhail agreed the above conditions.
The vote wa as follows: Mr. Hardt, ; Mr. Fishman,,
yes, M� l�tamb, yes; Mr. Walter es;
Ms. Amo se Groomes, yes; Mr. Zi ennan, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 —
2. Accessory Uses and Structures
10- 021ADM Code Amendment
Steve Langworthy introduced this Code amendment for accessory uses and structures. He said
this amendment originated from a series of issues that have arisen over the past few years with
Board of Zoning Appeals, primarily dealing with accessory structure sizes. He said there have
also been issues with the Zoning Code in terms of clarity of the language, with the idea of what
constitutes `attachment' as one of the biggest issues. Mr. Langworthy stated that as a result of
these issues over the years, City Council recently directed Planning to research and prepare a
Code amendment addressing these concerns.
Mr. Langworthy said that by definition, accessory structures are intended to be subordinate to the
principal use. He said that subordinate means not only subordinate in use, but also in
appearance; accessory structures should look Iike something that is attached to or part of the
principal structure, as opposed to another main building. Mr. Langworthy said that objective can
be accomplished through a number of different types of regulations.
Mr. Langworthy said that there is no magic number that Planning can provide as a standard that
most other communities use to regulate accessory structure size. He encouraged the
Commissioners to make suggestions about what they felt would be appropriate for Dublin, which
would then be forwarded to City Council.
Chris Amorose Groomes requested that the Commission begin by conceptually discussing what
they are trying to accomplish with this Code amendment. She suggested that the Commissioners
identify their objectives and think critically about whether the Code hits those targets.
Richard Taylor suggested that since he and Ms. Amorose Groomes had recently dealt with this
Code Section, perhaps they could relate their experiences to begin the discussion. He began by
saying that he was pleased to see the issues with this Code Section finally being dealt with,
because he had dealt with this section in his practice on a number of occasions.
Mr. Taylor recalled one of his clients, who lived in River Forest on a very large lot, who wanted
a detached garage with studio space above it. He said the garage was not particularly large, but
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 17
the combination of the first floor space and the second floor space exceeded 720 square feet,
which is the maximum square footage permitted by the Zoning Code for detached accessory
structures. He said it would have been subordinate to the principal structure in appearance and in
size, it was set back on a very large lot and it complimented the architecture of the main building.
He said that without a variance to the 720 - square -foot limitation, the only way the garage could
be built was to attach it to the principal structure. He said that after looking at the cost, his client
decided it was not worth the trouble and he built the garage without the studio space. He said his
client would have been able to build the studio space because of the size of the lot if the
proposed Code amendment were approved.
Mr. Taylor described another client he had worked with in Galway Estates where the property
owners wanted to build an attached one -car garage with a semi -open outdoor kitchen adjacent to
an existing pool. He pointed out that the surface area of the pool is considered by the Zoning
Code to be an accessory structure and is included in the total permitted square footage allowance
that cannot exceed 30 percent of the area of the principal structure. He said he could not find a
way to achieve his client's goals without obtaining a variance. Mr. Taylor said the argument he
made to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) was that his client had a relatively small house on a
very large lot. He said that in Galway Estates, houses are between seven and eleven percent of
the total lot area, as compared to Coventry Woods across Dublin Road, where homes might
exceed twenty percent lot coverage. Mr. Taylor concluded that the proposed Code amendment
included provisions for the size of the accessory structures that relates to the size of the lot
instead of the size of the house, which made more sense to him.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she had recently helped her aunt and uncle at the BZA with a
variance case involving this Code Section. She explained that they wanted to build a three -car
garage in place of their existing two -car garage, built in 1940 with small doors that were not
wide enough for their vehicle to clear. She said there are also an old bank ban and a small
gazebo on the property, which together exceeded the 720 - square -foot limitation for detached
accessory structures. She explained that they had made a similar argument to the BZA about lot
coverage; that with the addition of the three -car garage and removal of the two -car garage, they
would still be at less than three percent lot coverage. She added that the house was built on a hill,
so the garage could not be attached to the house. She concluded that the variance request had
been disapproved by the BZA.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was generally not in favor of updating the Zoning Code sections
because it has worked well enough over the years. She said whenever Code amendments are
made, there are unintended consequences that are bound to result; however, if this is the route
that City Council has directed the Commission to take, then she would take up the charge.
Todd Zimmerman noted that he had served three years with the BZA. He commented that the
proposed Code amendments allowing for lot size was not something that they had in their
toolbox while reviewing these types of requests. He recalled many times when the BZA had been
required to deal with this issue, even with swimming pools, and they had expressed similar
concerns.
Mr. Fishman, who had also been a BZA member, said he thought the proposed Code amendment
was well done. He asked what would happen, for example, if the Code were to be amended, and
in the future, if someone wanted a lot split resulting in small lots with large accessory structures.
He asked if the lot split request would be denied.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 17
Mr. Langworthy said that allowing greater square footages is less likely to result in negative
unintended consequences; in other words, everything that is smaller now, like with Mr. Taylor's
clients, they could now build bigger, not just because of the size modifications, but because
Planning proposes that the square footage calculations include ground floor square footage only.
Mr. Langworthy said the potentially negative consequence was that if someone builds a building
that is proportional to the size of the lot, and then decide to split the lot; they would have a
problem. He said the lot split would have to be denied, or they would have to reduce the size of
the accessory structure to be consistent with the size of the lot as the Code amendment proposes.
Mr. Langworthy said that was one of the reasons why Planning looked into the number of lots
that they thought would be affected by this amendment. He referred to a map showing the
residential properties in the City and said there were about 600 parcels with one to five acres that
could be affected, but a number of those lots are already at the size that they are going to be. He
pointed out that many parcels are well over five acres and will probably be split before they are
developed. Mr. Langworthy said that they do not feel the overall effect in terns of numbers will
be very significant, but if someone wanted to build a bigger building, Planning would have to
make sure that the property owner was aware that if at some point in the future they wanted to
split the property, they would have to reduce the size of the accessory building or get a variance
in order to make a lot split possible.
Mr. Langworthy suggested that something could be added in a nonconfonnities section that
would specify that accessory structures built after the date of the passage of this Code
amendment would be made conforming even after a lot split. However, he said that could end up
with fairly large accessory structures on small lots, and then the idea of subordination based on
lot size would be lost. He said he would not recommend such a regulation, but that was
something that could be done to take care of that problem.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the Commissioners begin reviewing and commenting on
the proposed Code amendments by section.
Amy Kramb referred to Section 153.002 Definitions, `Accessory Structure,' and suggested that
the word `building' be removed from the definition because a building is not necessarily a
structure in some fields. Mr. Langworthy said that would be fine, because the definition of
`structure' includes the word `building.'
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the principal structure would always be the residence, because in
some parts of Dublin, accessory structures might be larger than the primary structure. She said
there were some barns on Dublin and Coffman Roads and along the river that added tremendous
character to those corridors. She said she did not want to make all of those outbuildings
subordinate to the house.
Rachel Ray explained that the definition of `Principal Structure' is a structure that is intended to
accommodate the principal use. She said that with the proposed amendment, the principal
structure could be smaller than the accessory building on some larger lots.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if a principal use could be a farm and if the accessory building
would be the house. Mr. Langworthy said they needed to be careful with agricultural buildings,
because they are treated separately by state law. He said the City can regulate farm buildings by
setback, but not by size.
Dublin Plarming and Zoning Conmrissioo
May 20, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 17
Kevin Walter asked how it would be handled if an agricultural building were converted to a
home, which would then be a principal use. Mr. Langworthy said there could only be one
principal use per lot, unless it is in a PUD or some other zoning district that allows two dwellings
on one lot.
Mr. Taylor commented on the definition for `Attached Accessory Structure.' He asked if the
intent was that any part of the accessory building must be within 15 feet of the foundation of the
principal structure, or if it was foundation to foundation. Mr. Langworthy said it was foundation
to foundation.
Mr. Walter referred to the `Detached Accessory Structure' definition and asked what if the
structure was right at 15 feet. Mr. Langworthy said if it was exactly 15 feet away, foundation to
foundation, and attached by habitable space, it was considered attached.
John Hardt referred to the definition of `Habitable Space' and asked if walls with windows and
glass could be considered habitable space.
Ms. Ray said the key was whether or not the space was heated. She said if it were an enclosed
breezeway structure with walls and a roof, but was not heated, it would be considered habitable
space.
Ms. Kramb said since her garage had walls and heat, it would be considered a livable space, and
she did not think that made sense. Mr. Langworthy clarified that these proposed definitions
applied only to the Zoning Code, not the Building Code.
Mr. Hardt said it was unclear whether or not just glass, posts, screens, or those kinds of materials
are sufficient for the definition of `Habitable Space.' Mr. Langworthy suggested `completely
enclosed' be inserted instead, since it did not matter what material was used.
Claudia Husak explained that it was intended to mean that posts and a roof could not make a
structure `attached.' Mr. Langworthy said for the sake of time, Planning would work on the
definitions for `Habitable Space' and `Livable Space.'
Mr. Hardt asked why in Code Section 153.074 (B) (2) (a) Detached Accessory Structures, the
applicability was limited to enclosed storage structures, which was something that lacked a
definition. He was concerned because such care was taken to define all of the other terms on the
previous pages. He asked if this was intended to only apply to storage structures, or if it was
intended to apply to all detached accessory structures.
Ms. Ray explained that detached accessory storage structures are dealt with in the table in
subsection (e), and the other detached accessory structures like gazebos, patios, and swimming
pools are dealt with separately in terms of lot coverage and setbacks. She said it was all under the
same (B) (2) heading, but it was addressed differently.
Mr. Hardt said similarly, the heading covering Detached Accessory Structures includes
subsection (b), which applies to attached garages and attached three- season rooms, which is
confusing and seems out of place. Mr. Langworthy explained that the purpose was to clarify
what should and should not count in this section concerning maximum square footage, as there
have been issues in the past with unclear terns and applicability.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission
May 20, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 17
Ms. Kramb asked what if a detached accessory structure was not used for storage. Ms. Ray said
detached garages, sheds, greenhouses, and those kinds of structures are of primary concern with
this amendment, and the size limitation applies to those structures. She said that all other
structures are limited by lot coverage and setbacks since they are less likely to have significant
impact.
Ms. Kramb asked about outdoor entertainment areas by swimming pools, or outdoor kitchens.
She asked why it was limited to storage structures and not to all detached structures. Mr.
Langworthy suggested that the Code Section state this section shall only apply to detached
accessory structures instead. Mr. Langworthy asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that
they are looking at Zoning Code text, while Planning looks at how the text is applied to real
situations and requests every day, and examples of what is intended to count and what is not
greatly helps demonstrate to applicants what the Code Section is intended to accomplish.
Mr. Walter referred to Section (B) (2) (c), and expressed a concern about gazebos, since they
may or may not be considered `landscape features.' He said he did not consider gazebos,
trellises, or arbors to be similar in size. He said gazebos by nature are more consequential
because they could have seating and a roof. He asked why gazebos were excluded from the
square footage limitation. Ms. Ray said that because gazebos are typically more open than
garages, sheds, and other storage structures, Planning was not originally proposing to include
them in what they had classified as `enclosed storage structures' because the nature of the
structure is different.
Mr. Walter said he thought gazebos should be counted toward the permitted square footage
because they could be very large. He noted that gazebos were addressed in subsections (b) and
(c). Mr. Fislunan and Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Walter.
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that trellises, such as a wine trellis, could become substantial
as well, and could be built on smaller properties of less than an acre.
Mr. Langworthy noted that gazebos might be no worse than a sports court, which could be
considerably larger than a gazebo.
Mr. Hardt said that he thinks trellises and arbors are not structures, while gazebos are, and that
the primary distinction was that gazebos have roofs that are not primarily open like those of
trellises and arbors. He suggested additional clarification to specify that trellises or arbors would
not count because they do not have roofs.
Ms. Ray suggested including a certain square footage as a size limitation instead to avoid getting
into discussions over what constitutes a `roof with applicants and property owners. Ms.
Amorose Groomes suggested that gazebos that are less than 250 square feet not be considered
`detached accessory structures' for the purposes of the square footages allowed in Table (B) (2)
(e). The Commission members agreed.
Mr. Hardt referred to Table (B) (2) (e) and asked where it stated how the height was intended to
be measured.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission
May 20, 2010 — Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 17
Ms. Ray said in the Definitions, there is a definition for `roof height.' She said for flat roofed
structures, height is measured to the highest point, while for gabled structures, height is
measured to the midpoint of the roof, and for mansard roofs, it is measured to the roof deck.
Ms. Kramb and Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the number of buildings should be
dependent to the size of the lot as well. Ms. Kramb suggested the table could be adjusted and the
first sentence of (c) be eliminated. Mr. Hardt clarified that the Commission wanted to see the
maximum quantity delineated in the table for all instances because it was not uniform. Mr.
Langworthy confirmed that a property of less than one acre could have two accessory structures,
and one accessory structure for each additional acre thereafter, up to a maximum of five.
Mr. Hardt referred to Code Section (B) (3) Accessory Structures in Multi- Fmnily Residential
Districts, subsection (b), and said he believed that the text limits multi - family residential to one
accessory structure total for the entire development, as it currently reads. He pointed out that
some apartment communities have pool houses, workout facilities, mailbox huts, and barns to
conceal dumpsters.
Mr. Langworthy said something separate could be written that would address structures related
to the overall complex as opposed to individual units. Mr. Hardt said small accessory structures
have served a good purpose as a creative way to hide some of the less attractive elements that
come along with multi- family communities, and he did not want limit those structures.
Mr. Walter recalled seeing big multi - family homes in Minneapolis that blended in very well with
the neighborhood. He said he wondered if 200 square feet was appropriate for such units, and
they would have to account for duplexes and other similar, large multi- family buildings if Dublin
wanted to see the kind of development they saw in Minneapolis.
Mr. Langworthy explained that two - family dwellings were not considered multi- family
dwellings by the Zoning Code. He further explained that the Zoning Code addresses one -, two -,
and four - family dwellings, but not three - family. He confirmed that there was a difference
between `multi - family' and a `duplex.' He said a two - family structure would fall under the
single - family requirements or allowances.
Mr. Walter pointed out that in (B) (3) (a), `Multiple - family' should be corrected to `Multi-
family,' since `Multiple - family' was not defined in the Code. Mr. Langworthy agreed to make it
consistent.
Mr. Walter requested that in (B) (3) (b) that the words `similar to and' be deleted. Mr.
Langworthy said they would, and also said they would be deleted in (B) (6) (a) for consistency.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Walter made a motion to table this proposed Code Amendment. Mr. Taylor seconded the
motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Fishman, ,yes; Mr. Hardt, yes, Ms.
Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.)
Ms. Amorose Groomes called a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Accessory Structure Case Summaries (1998 -2010)
1. 10 -004V — Riverside Drive Accessory Structure Variance (2/25/2010):
A request for a variance to construct a 1,656- square -foot two -story detached
garage on a 2.5 -acre lot with a 1,710- square -foot home and an existing 440 -
square -foot storage shed and 200 - square -foot gazebo that exceeds the square
footage permitted by the Zoning Code for detached accessory structures.
Approved with the condition that the accessory structure square footage not
exceed 80% of the size of the residence (1,360 square feet), where Code
permits a maximum of 30% of the size of the principal structure (5 13 square
feet).
2. 08 -083V — Dublin Estates — Accessory Structure Variance (9/25/2008):
A request for a variance for a detached accessory structure on a 2.02 -acre lot
with a 5,415- square -foot home that exceeds the square footage permitted by
the Zoning Code for detached accessory structures. Approved with the
condition that the structure not exceed 1,059 square feet (20% of the size of
the principal structure, but exceeds the 720 - square -foot limitation for detached
accessory structures by 339 square feet).
The Board of Zoning Appeals requested after reviewing this case that the
Planning and Zoning Commission consider a Code modification that would
take lot size into consideration for maximum accessory structure size.
3. 08 -031V — Historic District Accessory Structure Variance (5/22/2008):
A request for a variance to construct a 792 - square -foot detached garage for a
0.25 -acre property with a 2,182- square -foot home in the Historic District that
exceeds the square footage permitted by the Zoning Code for detached
accessory structures. The proposed detached garage would be 36% of the size
of the residence and would exceed the maximum permitted square footage for
detached accessory structures by 72 square feet). Approved with two
conditions.
4. 08 -021V — Galway Estates Accessory Structure Variance (4/24/2008):
A request for a variance to construct a 715- square -foot single -car garage and
pool house on a one -acre lot with an 800 - square -foot pool and a 4,200- square-
foot home that exceeds the maximum square footage permitted by the Zoning
Code for all accessory structures, attached and detached. The proposed garage
and pool house combined with the pool would be 36% of the size of the
residence. Approved with no conditions.
5. 05 -049V — River Forest Accessory Structure Variance (4/2812005):
A request for a variance to construct a 680 - square -foot shed and greenhouse
on a 1.8 -acre lot with a 4,800 - square -foot home and an 854- square -foot
swimming pool that exceeds the maximum square footage permitted by the
Zoning Code for all accessory structures, attached and detached. The proposed
shed and greenhouse combined with the pool would be 32% of the size of the
residence. Approved with the condition that an existing 160- square -foot shed
be removed.
6. 04 -014V — Grandee Cliffs Accessory Structure Variance (3/31/2004):
A request for a variance to construct a 650- square -foot swimming pool on a
0.75 -acre lot with a 1,863 - square -foot home, which exceeds the maximum
square footage permitted by the Zoning Code for all accessory structures,
attached and detached. The proposed swimming pool would be 35% of the
size of the residence. Approved with the condition that an existing 140 -
square -foot shed be removed.
7. 01 -075V — David Road Accessory Structure Variance (7/26/2001):
A request for a variance to construct a 576- square -foot detached garage on a
0.47 -acre lot with a 1,072 - square -foot home, which at 54% the size of the
principal structure exceeds the maximum square footage permitted by the
Zoning Code for all accessory structures. This application was disapproved.
8. 00 -083V — River Knolls Accessory Structure Variance (8/24/2000):
A request for a variance for an 850-square-foot detached structure on a 0.89 -
acre lot with a 2,500- square -foot home, which at 34% exceeds the maximum
square footage permitted by the Zoning Code for all accessory structures,
attached and detached. Approved with conditions.
(Code Amendment Establishing 30% Square Footage Limit Adopted 2/22/2000)
9. 99 -105V — Bright Road Accessory Structure Variance (12/16/1999):
A request for a variance to construct a 2,400 - square -foot barn on a 15.74 -acre
lot with a 7,274- square -foot home, which at 33% the size of the principal
structure exceeded the maximum square footage permitted by the Zoning
Code for all accessory structures. Prior to the Code modification in 2000,
accessory structures were permitted to be a maximum of 25% the size of the
principal structure. Approved with the condition that an attached, 650- square-
foot attached garage be converted to livable area within one year of the
approval.
10. 99 -103V — Sawmill Road Accessory Structure Variance (10/28/1999):
A request for a variance to construct a 640 - square -foot barn on a 0.90 -acre lot
with a 1,936 - square -foot home, which at 33% the size of the principal
structure exceeded the maximum square footage permitted by the Zoning
Code for all accessory structures. Approved with conditions.
11. 98 -033V — O'Shaughnessy Hills Variance (4/23/1998): A request for a
variance to construct a 1,200 - square -foot detached garage on a 0.9 -acre lot
with a 2,200- square -foot home with an attached garage, which at 54% the size
of the principal structure exceeded the maximum square footage permitted by
the Zoning Code for all accessory structures. This application was
disapproved.
* Prior to 2006, minutes for Board of Zoning Appeals meetings were not transcribed.
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
3. Accessory Structure & Setback Variance
10 -004V
7623 Riverside Drive
Variance
Proposal: A variance to construct a 1,656 - square -foot two -story detached
garage that exceeds the square footage permitted by the Zoning
Code for a detached accessory structure and a variance to allow a
structure to not meet the minimum side yard setback requirement.
The 2.5 -acre property is zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District and is located on the west side of Riverside
Drive approximately 500 feet north of the intersection with Hard
Road.
Request: Review and approval of variance to Code Sections 153.020(C)(3)
and 153.074 under the provisions of Code Sections 153.231.
Applicant: Anthony Amorose & Suzanne Walker, Owners.
Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 4104656; rray @dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: Victoria Newell made a motion, seconded by Bangalore Shankar, to permit the
applicant to construct a 720 - square -foot accessory structure with two conditions:
1) That the existing garage be removed; and
2) That the accessory structure square footage not exceed 80 percent of the size of the
residence.
VOTE: 5-0.
RESULT: This Variance application was approved.
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
CITY OF DUBLIN.
1 m' °n end
FEBRUARY 25 2010
SWOSWerR'0 Rood
Dubin Ohio 4W16 -IM6
Phone / TDD: 61"10_600
1;=61"104747
Web Site: www.dibil.oh.us
Creating a Legacy
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
3. Accessory Structure & Setback Variance
10 -004V
7623 Riverside Drive
Variance
Proposal: A variance to construct a 1,656 - square -foot two -story detached
garage that exceeds the square footage permitted by the Zoning
Code for a detached accessory structure and a variance to allow a
structure to not meet the minimum side yard setback requirement.
The 2.5 -acre property is zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District and is located on the west side of Riverside
Drive approximately 500 feet north of the intersection with Hard
Road.
Request: Review and approval of variance to Code Sections 153.020(C)(3)
and 153.074 under the provisions of Code Sections 153.231.
Applicant: Anthony Amorose & Suzanne Walker, Owners.
Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 4104656; rray @dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: Victoria Newell made a motion, seconded by Bangalore Shankar, to permit the
applicant to construct a 720 - square -foot accessory structure with two conditions:
1) That the existing garage be removed; and
2) That the accessory structure square footage not exceed 80 percent of the size of the
residence.
VOTE: 5-0.
RESULT: This Variance application was approved.
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
3. Accessory Structure & Setback Variance
10 -004V
7623 Riverside Drive
Variance
MOTION #2: Victoria Newell made a motion, seconded by Brett Page, to approve the eight -
foot setback as requested by the applicant.
VOTE: 4-1.
RESULT: This Variance application was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
MOTION #1 MOTION #2
Bangalore Shankar
Yes
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
No
Patrick Todoran
Yes
Yes
Brett Page
Yes
Yes
Kathy Ferguson
Yes
Yes
Page 2 of 2
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 3 of 12
galore Shankar golifirmed which o comer
Victoria Ne
' t 11 IC;J Qk
Dills. Newell
hazard.
Tammy Nja
public corAcnt. [There was
said he was satiAed with the
Mr. Tyler
that the
Mo , 06n and Vote
toria Newell n
asead on the r
Shankar, yes;
(Approved — 0.)
a motion, s4
mdation of
Todoran,
was a minor
17 ore new.
ne.]
provided b Mr. Tyler
I ation and would n6
ith his
create a serious
7byBrett as present and ha r comments.
Page, t and
this Buil 'ng Code Appeal
Chief Building cial. The vote as as follows:
X Ferguson, y Mr. Page, yes nd Ms. Newell, es.
3. Accessory Structure & Setback Variance 7623 Riverside Drive
10 -004V Area Variances
Planner Rachel Ray presented this request for an accessory structure square footage variance and
a side yard setback variance for a 2.5 -acre site located on the west side of Riverside Drive north
of Hard Road. She described the site, zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and
adjacent parcels. She stated that there is a 63 -foot change in topography from Riverside Drive
down to the Scioto River, with a small plateau in the middle third of the parcel forming the
buildable area of the lot. She reported that floodplain encompasses the rear third of the property,
and a small tributary of the Scioto River runs along the southern property line, separating the
residence from one of the existing accessory structures on the site. Ms. Ray explained that the
1,710 - square -foot residence was built in 1933, the 600 - square -foot garage was built in 1954, and
a storage shed, built in 1940, is located approximately two feet from the southern property line
and is accessible by a small wooden footbridge. Ms. Ray added that a 200 - square -foot gazebo is
located southwest of the residence. She presented photographs of the site showing the location of
the existing two -car garage, storage shed, and the gazebo.
Ms. Ray said the applicant is proposing to eliminate the existing garage and construct a new
1,656 - square -foot, detached three -car garage with a second story storage area located
approximately eight feet from the northern property line. She explained that with the proposed
garage, a total of 2,296 square feet of detached accessory structures would be located on the
property, while Code limits the area of detached accessory structures to 720 square feet, and
limits the total of all accessory structures to a maximum of 30 percent of the livable square
footage of the residence. Ms. Ray stated that Code would permit a total of 513 square feet of
accessory structures for this property based on the size of the 1,710- square -foot residence.
Ms. Ray explained that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance to allow the
proposed eight -foot side yard setback from the north property line for the proposed garage. She
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 4 of 12
said that Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 23 feet from the northern property line
based on the side yard setback requirements for the R -1 District.
Ms. Ray said regarding the accessory structure variance request, the Board must find that all
three of the first set of criteria must be met in order to approve the variance. She stated that it is
Planning's opinion that there are no special conditions peculiar to the site that are relevant to the
request to permit additional accessory structure square footage. She said regarding the need for
the variance not being necessitated by any action or inaction of the applicant, it is Planning's
opinion that since the applicant did not build the original structure, limiting the permitted area for
all accessory structures to 513 square feet, this criteria has been met. Ms. Ray said the third
required criteria, that the proposal will not materially change the proportionality intent for
accessory buildings to main buildings, has not been met in Planning's opinion.
Ms. Ray said that for the second set of criteria, Code requires that at least two of the four
standards be met. She pointed out that upon further review after distributing the Planning Report,
Planning found that the second criterion has been met. She explained that the Board has
reviewed similar requests in the past and made a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission that they consider a Code modification to alleviate this type of situation and require
that accessory structure area be permitted based on the size of the lot rather than the size of the
residence, but the Commission determined that a Code change would not be done at this time.
She confirmed that two of the four required standards have been met.
Ms. Ray reported that the second variance for the side yard setback uses the same standards. She
said it is Planning's opinion that no special conditions exist since there is sufficient area on the
site to construct the proposed garage in a conforming location. She said the third criterion has
been met because sufficient yard area would remain if the garage were built eight feet from the
property line as proposed.
Ms. Ray said that for the second set of criteria, it is Planning's opinion that no governmental
services would be affected by this request if approved; however, the applicant could eliminate
the need for this variance by constructing the structure in a conforming location.
Ms. Ray summarized Planning's recommendation that the Board disapprove both requested
variances.
Kathy Ferguson asked for further information regarding the Commission's rejection of the
Board's recommendation to modify the Code requirement regarding square footage permitted for
accessory structures.
Ms. Ray explained that the Board reviewed an accessory structure variance case in September
2008, and the Board made a recommendation to request that the Commission reconsider the
Code language. She said that the Board suggested that rather than basing the permitted square
footage of accessory structures based on the size of the main dwelling unit, that the square
footage be permitted based on the size of the lot. She said that when the recommendation was
proposed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission did not feel that a Code
change was warranted at that time.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 5 of 12
Patrick Todoran asked why the proposed setback was only eight feet, rather than the 23 feet
required by Code.
Tony Amorose, 7623 Riverside Drive, the applicant, said they were flexible on the location of
the proposed garage.
Chris Amorose Groomes, 5896 Leven Links Court, representing the applicant, pointed out that
the most recent development in this area was Riverside Woods, where lot coverage averages 25
to 35 percent. She said that the applicant's lot is approximately 110,000 square feet (2.5 acres),
and with the proposed garage, there will be 3,262 square feet of building coverage, which is less
than 3 percent of the lot coverage. She said that at 25 percent lot coverage, that would result in
27,500 square feet of coverage. Ms. Amorose Groomes continued that for a 1,700- square -foot
garage, Code would require a 6,000- square -foot home. She said it was the applicant's opinion
that they are being penalized for having a small, 1,710- square -foot home, typical of homes built
in the 1930s.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that it was the applicant's conclusion regarding the accessory
structure area that there are issues with attaching a three -car garage to the residence because of
the property contours and the location of the residence. She pointed out that there are several
landmark trees that would have to be removed if the garage were attached to the house. Ms.
Amorose Groomes pointed out that the 2.5 -acre property is wooded with quite a bit of river
frontage and as a result has more maintenance equipment needs than the average home in
Dublin, and that requires additional storage space.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said this is a very rural corridor and it is common to see barns and
outbuildings much larger than the primary residence on Riverside Drive, which is very different
than most single - family neighborhoods in Dublin. She said that the proposed three -car garage is
similar in height to the existing two -car garage. She said that they do not believe any special
privileges are being granted and that no government services are affected. Ms. Amorose
Groomes said that the applicant believes that all the criteria are met regarding the first variance.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the applicant is willing to relocate the proposed garage if
necessary. She said that they chose the proposed location for aesthetics due to the neighbor's
four -car garage located near the shared property line and to provide more open area.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said regarding the request for a variance to the side yard standards, they
did not feel it was necessary to take down a 60 -year -old bank barn that served as a storage area
for maintenance equipment, kayaks and fishing gear. She pointed out that because the 80 -year-
old residence has a hand -dug cellar, they have no basement storage.
Ms. Amorose Groomes presented photographs of the existing garage, the driveway, and location
of the proposed garage, the neighbor's four -car garage, the existing single -story residence, the
bank barn, the footbridge, the tributary ravine, and a view of the property from Riverside Drive.
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that a letter of support from the neighbor to the north was
provided to the Board members in their packet. She said that the applicants have received seven
City Beautiful awards from the City of Dublin for the way that they maintain their property. She
emphasized that it was important for the applicants to be good stewards of the community and to
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 6 of 12
do what is best for everyone involved. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they just want a place to
park their cars where they can get in and out of their vehicles with relative ease.
'`Victoria Newell asked if there were grading issues that prevent the garage from being attached to
the house. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out on a photograph the two landmark trees that
would have to be removed in order to attach the garage. She said otherwise it would have to sit
directly in front of the entry door.
Bangalore Shankar asked if all possible locations for attaching the garage had been explored. Ms.
Amorose Groomes said they felt they considered everything feasible and economical.
Mr. Shankar asked if the existing accessory structures met Code. Ms. Ray said that with the
exception of the gazebo, they were built before the properties had been annexed into the City.
She said they are non - conforming structures, but if they were modified or changed, they would
need to come into compliance with the current Zoning Code.
Mr. Todoran asked if the new garage could be built where the existing garage was located. Ms.
Newell confirmed that even the existing garage exceeds the allowed square footage because it
exceeds the square footage permitted by the Code.
Mr. Todoran said he was concerned about the location of the new garage because it looked like
there were only two or three feet between structures. He pointed out that there may not be
enough emergency access between the structures.
Tammy Noble - Flading said she thought that five feet met legal separation for fire issues.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that as proposed, the new garage would be eight feet from the
property line. She said the neighbor's garage was on the property line, and there would be eight
feet separating the garage. She agreed that they would move the garage if the Board requested.
Ms. Newell said that the Board had struggled with similar cases in the past, which is why they
recommended a Code modification. She said the response from the Planning and Zoning
Commission was clear in supporting the current regulations. She acknowledged that the existing
garage was undersized compared to modern standards; however, they are in violation with the
amount of accessory structure square footage. She said there was no argument presented that she
could find that there is something unique about this site warranting additional accessory structure
square footage. She said she was not convinced that the topography prevents the applicant from
attaching the garage to the residence.
Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that she was a Planning and Zoning Commissioner when this
issue was brought to the Commission for review. She explained that the Commission wanted
such an amendment to be part of the overall Zoning Code update, and that was the reason why
they did not deal with the issue at that time.
Ms. Newell said she appreciated Ms. Amorose Groomes' comments, but it was not relevant for
the Board in relation to this case.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 7 of 12
Mr. Shankar asked if the garage could be offset from the front door. Ms. Amorose Groomes
explained that would obstruct the river view from the home, and the view from the family room
would be the garage wall.
Brett Page thought that where this garage is being proposed is respectful to the neighbors, the
rural character, and the river.
Ms. Newell thought the structure needed to comply with the side yard setback. She said although
she thought they should have a garage, she was not sure she would support a variance for a
garage this size.
Mr. Page asked if a compromise would be appropriate. Ms. Ray explained that the Board could
consider a lesser variance since the Zoning Code limits the total accessory structure area to 30
percent of the livable area of the residence, which includes both attached and detached accessory
structures, and for most modern single - family homes in Dublin, that is probably much more area
than what is permitted for this site. She said the Code also limits detached accessory structures to
720 square feet, so that is an alternative that the Board could consider. She summarized that the
Board's discussion so far was that the location of the structure is less of a concern since the
applicant is amenable to relocating the garage in a conforming location, and suggested the Board
address the accessory structure area variance first.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the eight -foot setback was recommended by Planning, but if they
need to back off for two feet to 23 feet off the property line, that is not a problem. She said there
is an existing trellis that runs from the garage to approximately eight feet from the door. She
said they would be happy to connect it with a trellis so it could be considered one structure and
there would be no violation of the square footage of an accessory building.
Ms. Newell said that was a good suggestion, but the City has a very clear interpretation in terms
of using structures like trellises to "attach" acaaassory structures. She said it would have to be
fully walled in as if it were a structure to attach the garage based on the Code interpretation.
Mr. Todoran asked if a two -car garage with single garage doors would be possible. Ms. Ray said
that if the Board felt that Criteria 1 and 3 were met, that it could be an acceptable alternative.
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the storage area above the proposed three -car garage was
included as square footage.
Mr. Amorose said the existing garage is 600 square feet and they want to remove it. He
explained that the proposed three -car garage is approximately 946 square feet, or 24 feet by 38
feet. He suggested placing the new garage where the existing garage sits. He said there is no
view of the existing garage or the house from Riverside Drive, however, the existing garage can
be seen from their bay window and that was why they were considering building the new garage
at the end of the driveway. He said the openings of the existing garage are too small for anything
but a small car.
Mr. Shankar asked if 513 square feet was 30 percent of the building footprint or total area of the
house. Ms. Ray clarified it was 30 percent of the total area of the home, but in most cases a
second story or finished basement would be counted in the square footage. She said this
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 8of12
Particular structure has a single story with only a hand -dug cellar, so it just is the building
footprint in this particular case.
Ms. Newell said she believed there were extenuating circumstances on this site in regards to the
topography, and she might be supportive of this variance if the square footage is changed to 720
square feet, which would allow a two -car garage, because that is what is allowed by Code for a
detached accessory structure. Ms. Newell said the applicant would also have the option of
removing some of the other accessory structures which would help as well.
Ms. Ferguson asked if 720 ,square feet would be a sufficient size for a garage. Mr. Amorose
asked that it be considered that this is a 2.5 -acre lot and that a couple of hundred square feet is
not a big deal on a 110,000- square -foot lot. He said a three -car garage would be appreciated.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the area above the garage not be finished and left as attic
space. She said that would reduce the area to approximately 920 square feet.
Mr. Shankar said he thought compromises could be made because of the deteriorating garage and
the difficult site features. He suggested eliminating the second story.
Ms. Newell asked for the combined areas of the existing storage shed and gazebo. Ms. Ray said
it would be 640 square feet, 440 square feet for the shed and approximately 200 square feet for
the gazebo, which was more than allowed by Code.
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that the gazebo was an open walled structure and was not
enclosed. Ms. Newell explained that even a swimming pool is considered a structure.
Mr. Amorose pointed out that if he owned a 6,000- square -foot house on this property, there
would be no issue with building a three -car garage. He said he was being penalized because he
had a small home.
Ms. Newell explained that was part of the reason the Board struggled with this particular
provision, and that the Board has had similar cases in the past. She said that the Board was
obligated by their rules and regulations to adhere to the City of Dublin Zoning Code. Ms. Newell
reiterated that she saw a hardship because of the topography of this site, but the issue the Board
is struggling with is the size of the structures. She did not think someone should be denied
having a garage, and she thought the existing garage is undersized compared to what most
Dublin residents have, so she thought the applicant was being denied a privilege. She said that a
reasonable argument had been provided, given the topography of the site, the preservation of the
landmark trees, and the difficulty with attaching the garage to the structure. However, Ms.
Newell said that they needed to comply with the setback requirements.
Mr. Page asked for clarification regarding the purpose of the size limitation. Ms. Ray explained
that the purpose of the regulation was to maintain the primary structure as the principal use of the
land, whereas the sheds, garages, or other additional attached or detached structures should be
clearly subordinate and not to be used for any other use other than storage or permitted accessory
uses, for example a business on the property.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Page said no one would see a single -story structure from Riverside Drive. Ms. Noble -
Flading confirmed that Mr. Page was asking whether aesthetics could be considered an adverse
impact.
Mr. Page asked if that was the heart of regulation. He said that in this unique area, aesthetics are
not really an issue for anyone but the property owners. He did not think anyone driving on
Riverside Drive would be able to see that there was a proportionality issue on this site.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was the applicant's opinion that it was mitigated by the separation
in access of 60 feet from the residential structure to the garage. She said that was more than the
separation between most homes in this community.
Ms. Ray explained that Planning's determination that the evaluation of the standard was less
about aesthetics than the intent of the regulation as related to proportionality and use.
Ms. Newell pointed out that any resident in the City of Dublin would be required to comply with
the 720 - square -foot provision.
Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that they would be happy to leave the second floor as attic
space which would cut the proposed square footage in half.
Ms. Newell said she was only struggling with the square footage provision. She pointed out that
there are many three -car garages in the City of Dublin.
Mr. Shankar agreed to compromise if the other Board members were comfortable.
Mr. Page agreed that a compromise should be made because of the unique qualities of the
property that requires some consideration by the Board in this situation.
Ms. Ferguson summarized that because the house is not very large, the garage cannot be built as
proposed, and the existing garage is not large enough to accommodate the needs of the property
owner; however, a 1,656- square -foot garage was clearly in excess of what she could approve.
Ms. Ferguson asked if there was a mechanism where the Board could come to some resolution
with this applicant.
Ms. Ray said one alternative is that the Board could identify a lesser variance that they felt met
all of the criteria. She explained that the applicant also has the option of withdrawing the current
variance, and requesting instead a garage that is 912 - square feet without a second story. She said
however, Planning's recommendation would continue to be disapproval based on the same
standards.
Ms. Newell said she was supportive of a variance of up to 720 square feet.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said a three -car garage would meet their needs. She asked the Board to
consider that the additional 200 square feet might be justified by the conditions of the property.
Ms. Newell said that 720 square feet was the limit for detached accessory structures, and anyone
else in the City of Dublin building a detached garage is bound by that same amount.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 10 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed, but respectfully submitted that was why the appeals process was
in place. She said if they had met the Zoning Code, the applicant would not be here. She said
they are present at this meeting to demonstrate that they have special conditions that justify a
deviation from the Code.
Ms. Newell agreed that there were some circumstances warranting some deviation, and she said
she was comfortable with some deviation in terms of the difficulty with the topography, but she
was uncomfortable with approving a structure that exceeds 720 square feet.
Mr. Page said there appeared to be excess space on both sides of the three -car garage for storage.
He asked what would be the minimum area for a typical three -car garage.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said on the drawings, it appeared to be approximately 5.5 feet from the
end of the garage door to the wall. She thought at least two feet would be needed to open and
close the door.
Ms. Newell said the Board members are all struggling with the area, and based on the provision
she did not think they could give the applicant enough area for the second -floor storage. She
pointed out that the stairs shown on the plans take up a lot of the back area of the garage. She
asked if the applicant wanted to revisit this proposal and bring it back to the Board to review.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if they could get a decision this evening with a condition giving
them a certain footprint. She said the depth of the proposed garage is 24 feet, which is typical.
She reiterated that if the Board preferred that the garage be built in the exact spot of the existing
garage, approximately 150 square feet would be added to the footprint over what exists currently.
Mr. Shankar agreed that would be a good solution
Ms. Noble - Flading summarized that the two proposals discussed were to have a detached garage
limited to 720 square feet or allowing a second garage limited to the first floor, which would be
approximately 912 square feet. She suggested the Board discuss the removal of the existing 440 -
square foot shed to get more square footage for the proposed garage.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said it seemed a shame to tear down a bank barn built in 1940 just to
replace a two -car garage with a three -car garage.
Ms. Newell explained that 720 square feet is not going to get the applicant to a three -car garage,
but no one else can have a detached three -car garage unless the provision is changed. She said
that was why she was comfortable with 720 square feet. She said the Board is discussing
allowing the applicant to exceed the accessory structure area above and beyond the percentage
permitted by Code; however, she said she was not comfortable going above 720 square feet.
Ms. Newell confirmed that the existing garage would be removed. Ms. Ray reminded the Board
that the criteria must be met and that the two variances requested needed separate votes.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2010
Page 11 of 12
Mr. Page asked if a condition for the minimum size for a three -car garage could be added. Ms.
Ray said during her research for this case, she could not find a standard size requirement for a
three -car garage, so she could not recommend a condition to that effect.
Mr. Page asked if the Board took action on a variance to permit 720 square feet, could the
applicant come back with a minimum three -car garage for an additional review of the variance.
Ms. Ray said that would be an option, but Planning would continue to look at it based on what
the Code required. Ms. Noble - Flading said they also could table the case.
Ms. Ray clarified that 720 square feet was 42 percent of the existing residence, and if that is
added to the percentage of the storage shed and gazebo, that would be a total of 80 percent of the
size of the residence.
Motion #1 and Vote
Victoria Newell made a motion, seconded by Bangalore Shankar, to permit the applicant to
construct a 720 - square -foot accessory structure with two conditions:
1) That the existing garage be removed; and
2) That the accessory structure square footage not exceed 80 percent of the size of the
residence.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Todoran, yes; Mr. Page, yes; Ms. Ferguson, yes; Mr. Shankar, yes;
and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 5 — 0.)
Ms. Amorose Groomes verified that if they built a 720 - square -foot garage, they did not need to
return for a setback variance.
Ms. Ray said that when the applicant came in for a Building Kermit, Planning would work with
the applicant to identify a conforming location if the variance is disapproved.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they would still like to be able to build the garage closer to the
north property line, approximately eight feet from the neighbor's garage, if that would be okay
with the Board.
Mr. Todoran asked if they would build the garage where the existing garage was located. Ms.
Amorose Groomes said that would not be their first choice.
Motion and Vote #2
Victoria Newell made a motion, seconded by Brett Page, to approve the eight -foot setback as
requested by the applicant.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Shankar, yes; Mr. Todoran, yes; Ms. Ferguson, yes; Mr. Page, yes;
and Ms. Newell, no. (Approved 4 —1.)
7 t
CITY OF DUBLIN_
land We and
to" mow•
'M SNW-Mrps RoW
Dubffm Ohio 43016.1276
Phone / TDD: 614- 4104600
F= 614-410.4747
Web Site: www du661.o1u6
Creating a Legacy
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
3. Dublin Estates — Accessory Structure and Fence 7535 Bellaire Avenue
08 -083V
Variance
Proposal: A detached accessory structure that exceeds the maximum
permitted square footage for a single - family residence in Dublin
Estates. The site is located on the west side of Bellaire Avenue,
approximately 425 feet north of the intersection with Limerick
Lane.
Request: Review and approval of a variance to Code Sections 153.074 and
153.080()3)(2).
Applicant: Mary Ann Davis, Owner.
Planning Contacts: David Stromberg, Planning Assistant and Rachel E. Swisher,
Planner I.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, dstromberg@dublin.oh.us and
rswishet@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: Keith Blosser made a motion, seconded by Drew Skillman, to approve a structure to
exceed the 720 square foot maximum square footage of a detached structure with one condition
that the structure does not exceed 1,059 square feet. [Note: The applicant requested that
variance two through four as listed in the Planning Report be withdrawn and only the first
variance was reviewed by the Board.]
VOTE: 4-1.
RESULT: This variance request was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Mr. Cotter: Yes, there are special conditions particular to this land exists the structure
presently exists and the only way to meet the intent of the code would be tear
down part of this which I believe is a practical difficulty, request is not general or
an recurring nature, this structure is particular to this land and probably unusual in
the zoning district that exists and for review criteria listed in 153.231 (H) (2) (b),
that two standards are met.
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
3. Dublin Estates — Accessory Structure and Fence 7535 Bellaire Avenue
0"83V Variance
Continued
Ms. Newell: Yes, in this particular instance an extenuating circumstance exists based on a pre-
existing structure that is considered a non - conforming use, it was not built by the
owner and had no impact in creating the existing condition that is in place, there is
no clear definition in the Dublin Toning Code on the definition for repair or
alteration on this particular structure in which to draw a conclusion upon. There
are no alterations to the existing square footage or changes to the use, everything
is remaining the same. This is repair to a deficiency in the design of the structure
that is creating a continual drainage issue for the roof of this structure.
Mr. Shankar: No, in this case even though it is a non - conforming structure there are a lot of
improvements even though the footprint of the original building is not changed,
the purpose and use are still the same, however the moment you touch the non
conforming structure it has to conform to the present Codes, so they have to come
in to the confines of the Code.
Mr. Skillman: Yes, there are special conditions and circumstances that do exist on this property
based on structural non-integrity of the building which does present a practical
- difficulty. There are no substantial or adverse affects that will be created by
modification of this building and for a lack of a definition in the City Code for
repair or alterations.
Mr. Blosser. Yes, for the variance based on several reasons including those mentioned by my
colleagues, there are no changes to the footprint, the building was built well into
the 60s long before any of these Codes existed and is non conforming and had a
non conforming variance in use from before and they are substantially changing
the character of use or changing the square footage, updates are being done to the
facility to make it safe and correct structural problems and defects, and are well
within the current verbiage of the Code, with no reservations in voting yes
because it hinges on potential safety issues which a no vote even though on a
case by case bases would send the wrong message to the public that we don't
want people to keep up their properties and make sure that defects in the
construction or the engineering could not be addressed and therefore the public
would not come forward to make these corrections that could in some cases be
life threatening. r , STAFFERTIFICATION
T mmy . NobelFla
Senior Planner
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 3 of 10
The to was as foIlo Mr. Cotter, y , Mr. Sh,
Ms. NewZ (Approved 5 —
2. B , ection 2- — Model Dome
0 S1SP
There no discussion garding this Co ent item.
ion and Vote
yan Amos, repr enti
Planning Repo
Keith BIo er made a
applica . n because it
appr riate for the
ne' borhood, with tx?c
Mr. Skillman,
Mr. Blosser, y/s;
5779 Baro court Way
eclal Permit
conditions list in the
Fisher H,*cs, the applicar agreed to the
7 moPbn, sec onded
the reviev
itinued use ass/
conditions:
b Drew Skil
standards of
model with re
Ao approve this
Code and the 4
to the develr(neu
Permit
nature of
1) All int r lighting, with a exception of 'ghting in a maxi um of two roo must be
turn off by 9:00 p.m. d remain off u 18 :00 a.m. dail and
/vote special p t is to expire i eight months, o ay 30, 2009, as soon as an
ication is fil or a more perm ent model home- hichever com first.
s as foll s: Ms. Newell es; Mr. Sh yes; Mr. Cotter, es; Mr. Skillm yes;
sser, (Approved 5 0.)
3. Dublin Estates — Accessory Structure and Fence 7535 Bellaire Avenue
08 -083V Variance
Planning Assistant David Stromberg presented this request for review and approval of four
separate variances. He said Variance 1 is to allow square footage of a detached accessory
structure to exceed the maximum permitted for a detached structure, Variance 2 is to allow the
applicant to exceed the 30 percent maximum area of all accessory structures, attached and
detached, Variance 3 is to allow the applicant to construct an eight -foot tall fence, when four feet
is the maximum permitted by Code, and Variance 4 is to allow the applicant to construct a fence
within the side yard setback.
Mr. Stromberg said this 2.02 -acre site, contains a 5,415- square -foot 1 %2 -story house, a covered
garage and a covered carport. The surrounding properties are zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District and range from 1.5- to 2.5- acres. Mr. Stromberg said the walkway, carport,
and storage area are considered attached accessory structures and are part of the cumulative area
of all accessory structures. He said to the rear of the carport is a covered garage. Mr. Stromberg
said the garage and storage area are considered detached accessory structures He said the
garage is subject to the 720 - square -foot limitation set by Code and is also included in the
cumulative area of all accessory structures. An eight -foot fence exists along the property line.
He presented a slide of the existing flat - pitched roof garage surrounded by heavy vegetation.
Mr. Stromberg said the existing walkway and carport have flat - pitched roofs. He presented a
slide showing the existing uncovered storage area. He said the eight -foot fencing makes up the
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 4 of 10
perimeter of the storage area Mr. Stromberg said the applicant proposes to reconstruct the
covered walkway, carport, and to cover the storage area He said these areas, although attached,
are accessory structures, and are subject to a 30 percent limitation for cumulative accessory
structures, set by Code.
Mr. Stromberg said the proposed fencing will be eight feet in height and a portion will be located
within the side yard setback. He presented a slide showing the eight -foot side yard. He said
variances would be required for the height and location of the fence.
Mr. Stromberg explained that the Board shall only approve a request for a non -use variance
when there is evidence of a practical difficulty present on the property. He said Code requires
that all Standards, A -i through A -3, and at least two Standards, B -1 through B4, be satisfied.
Mr. Stromberg said that Planning has determined that for all four variances, Standard 1 has not
been met. He said there are no topographic or other conditions that necessitate the need for the
applicant to exceed the limitations determined by the Code. He said Standard 2 has been met.
The applicant has not created any of the physical characteristics that might affect this request.
Mr. Stromberg said Standard 3 has not been met for all four variances. The Code limits the size
of detached accessory structures in order to ensure that they are ancillary to primary structures.
He said the cumulative area of all accessory structures is limited so that the primary structure is
always proportionately larger than accessory structures, regardless of the home size.
Mr. Stromberg said that Planning recommends disapproval of all four Variances.
Drew Skillman asked if the existing structures will be expanded if approved. Mr. Stromberg said
they will be approximately the same size, but when reconstructed, they have to come into
conformance with the Code.
Keith Blosser asked when the existing structures were built. Mr. Stromberg said there are no
records of them being built after the house, so Planning is assuming that it was built with the
house.
Brian Wiland, representing the applicant, asked where the definitions of accessory use and
structures, and attached accessory structures appeared in the Code. He said they were granted
approval to start a carport, storage, and a connector on August 19 and as part of that, they were
told they would need a variance for the garage.
Mr. Stromberg explained that the information was provided in preparation for a building permit
and was erroneous. He said the 30 percent refers to the cumulative accessory structures which
include attached as well as detached.
Victoria Newell said what she was referring to was that there is a certain percentage of lot
coverage allowed per property. She said a problem with accessory structures is if that area that
accessory structure was taken, there would be the potential of adding it onto a house as an
addition. She said Planning had given an interpretation that the connection that had occurred
between the two of them had to be completely walled in, which was her understanding that they
were referring to; that it provided some type of livable environment, not just a trellis or open,
covered walkway.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 5 of 10
Ms. Newell said she had driven by the home and the garage and carport appeared very much
attached, and seemed as one structure.
Mr. Wiland said the carport and residence are open, surrounded by fence. He said they had
decided to remove the storage area of the carport and two pieces of storage from the project to
get them well below 30 percent, and negate the need for the variance.
Ms. Newell asked Planning to define attached accessory structures and accessory structures.
Mr. Shankar said the Code clearly specifies what accessory structures are and they are de
accessory structures. fined
as patios, garage storage, and all that. He said covered porches and patios are considered
Mr. Wiland said they were willing to change the plan, but he pointed out that removing the two
carport storage areas would not change the size of the garage. He said the covered area was 136
square feet and the uncovered area was 118 square feet.
Tammy Noble - Flading said she had discussed previously with Mr. Wiland procedurally, how
this could happen. She said without having figures or exact proposals in front of the Board, she
did not want to ask the Board to react to a modified proposal the day of this meeting. She said
she understood that of the four variances on the original application, the applicant's main
objective was to pursue the last one which dealt with the detached structure.
Ms. Newell asked to be shown on the slide presented exactly what was included as the accessory
structure, whether it was open or enclosed, and to be clear on the definition.
Mr. Stromberg said the 30 percent for cumulative structures included the garage, carport and
storage area, and walkway. He confirmed that the fenced area and a portion of the shed area
were included.
Ms. Noble - Flading said the definition for the 30 percent includes accessory uses and structures.
She said everything, except for the residential home is being included as part of that 30 percent.
She said that Code interpretation has not changed since April and is a consistent Code
interpretation. Ms. Noble - Flading said Planning had explained that there may have been some
discussion about what is construed in that 30 percent, but they had been very consistent about
what they were considering part of that 30 percent. She said Planning agreed that there could be
some distinction between attached and detached, but the definition does not differentiate.
Mr. Blosser asked if a building permit had been issued. Ms. Noble - Flading said a building
permit had never been issued and that Mr. Wiland was referring to dialogue that preceded the
building permit.
Mr. Wiland said that Dublin had an unusual definition for accessory structures. He said the main
focus was the garage, and he agreed with Ms. Noble - Flading that was where he should be going
now. He said the garage is a concrete block structure that was added to several times. He said
the shed portion of the garage was actually a post and beam structure. He said they were
removing the walls on that because they thought it was simpler to remove them and rebuild them
on top of the foundation, in lieu of replacing a few of the post and beams that are rotten at the
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 6 of 10
base. He said there was a lot of rot in the ceilings and roofs of these structures. He said there
had been a lot of money spent on the garage itself because of the slope draining through the
garage. He said the water had been moved from going through the garage to around the garage.
Mr. Wiland said he did not believe this circumstance is so generally reoccurring that would
require the Code to be changed to allow them to put a sloped roof on this existing structure. He
said they were not enlarging it. He said it was partially buried into a hill on two sides. Mr.
Wiland said the side and rear are only exposed by about four -feet and that was part of the
drainage issue solved. Mr. Wiland said the need for the space is clear because on a two -acre site,
a two -car garage and a place for a lawn tractor are needed. He said a garage can not be attached
to this house because it is a walkout on that side and there is a ten -foot grade change up to the
main living level. Mr. Wiland said they currently are covering ten percent of the lot on a lot
coverage allowance of 45 - percent.
Mr. Wiland said if the intent of the Code was to ensure that the primary structure is not
overwhelmed by the accessory structure, and the lot coverage is kept to a minimum, he believed
their proposal met the intent of the Code.
Sean Cotter confirmed that the structure stayed more or less intact, except the roof will be taken
off and trusses will be on top of it.
Victoria Newell explained that in the Dublin Zoning Code the provision combines all the
accessory structures on the site. However any one, individual accessory structure that is standing
along by itself, cannot exceed 720 square feet. She explained that the first variance request was
because the existing structure already exceeds the 720 square feet.
Mr. Blosser said he could not find a Code definition for substantial change. He said since the
footprint is not being increased but there is an alteration to the structure, he saw a gray area. He
said there are safety considerations that need to be taken into consideration. He said for an old
structure that became in disrepair to where it could actually fall down should not be discouraged
to be repaired, as is the case with the current Code.
Mr. Skillman said he did not see that the Board was setting any precedent with this case or
providing the applicant with rights that they are preventing other residents of Dublin from
having.
Ms. Newell said she agreed that a definition was needed in the Zoning Code to make a clear
distinction between reconstruction and repair.
Mr. Cotter asked if a roof got blown off in a storm and it could not be put back on the structure,
would it have to come to the Board for review and approval.
Ms. Noble - Flading said if the same roof were proposed, it would be considered maintenance.
Ms. Noble - Flading asked how the example differed from this particular variance request.
Mr. Skillman said the Board was going to deter people with accessory structures in excess of this
30 percent or the 720 - square foot joined use from making necessary modifications.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 7 of 10
Mr. Blosser said this could be considered an improvement because it did not change the footprint
or overall square footage and the same number of cars can be parked in the garage, and therefore
it is within the Code.
Mr. Shankar asked how the cumulative area of 720 square feet was determined.
Ms. Noble - Flading clarified that 720 square feet only applies to detached structures. She said
attached and detached structures were included in the 30 percent.
Mr. Blosser recalled a previous BZA case where an applicant wanted to enclose a covered patio
in a neighborhood where most of the covered patios were enclosed. He said the plans originally
approved showed the patio enclosed. He said the request was granted because the applicant
presented approved plans. He said the decision hinged on the applicant not doing a substantial
modification and not changing the character or the use of the overall structure.
Ms! Newell said to her, there was a clear definition between reconstruction and repair based on
general building terminology. She said the Board's problem was that no text in the Code was
found to permit latitude to do that.
Mr. Shankar said looking at the plans and elevations submitted, the whole structure is being
rebuilt.
Mr. Skillman disagreed, because he assumed that the building has been reviewed to determine if
the building was structurally sound. The Board's issue is whether or not to allow these
improvements to a legally, non - conforming structure without changing the footprint. He said the
Board was saying that if the applicant wanted to improve the garage, the footprint had to be
reduced. He said he could not see the Board ever getting another case like this again.
Mr. Cotter said the structure is either altered or it is repaired. He said if it was one, it was legal
and if it was the other, it was non - conforming.
Mr. Skillman said from his standpoint, it was a repair.
Ms. Noble - Flading referred to page 117 C (2), Non - Conforming Structures in a zoning district,
may be altered, reconstructed, or extended only in such manner that the alteration,
reconstruction, or extension will comply, and said in this particular instance, they are talking
about altered, reconstructed, or extended.
Mr. Skillman said alteration and repair is not definitive enough to turn the applicant down
Mr. Blosser said the only issue is that for the applicant to improve it so that it does not just sit
there and remain in disrepair, they would literally have to tear part of it down to come into the
720 -foot conformity.
Ms. Noble- Flading suggested that exclusive of this application, an alternative would be for the
Board to instruct Planning to modify the Code to do incremental size limitations based on the
property size.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 8 of 10
Ms. Noble - Flading said she could not recall in the last three years, very many cases that
exceeded the 720 square feet, so perhaps it did not necessitate a Code change, but what she was
saying was if the Board thought that was the reason that would prompt this case as being unique,
then a Code modification could be considered.
Mary Ann Davis said when they bought the house in 1976, it was a very rural property, not
annexed into Dublin. She said the previous owners in 1963 built the garage and the stall/storage
area. She said she has been advised numerous times over the years that a sloped roof was needed
on the building.
Mr. Skillman asked if this necessitated a Code change.
Ms. Newell said it certainly necessitated a definition in the Code so that there is some clear
direction on this. Mr. Skillman agreed.
Mr. Blosser said he thought a definition and a Code change was needed to get rid of the 720
square foot maximum and use of a lot percentage. He suggested that an accessory structure not
be larger than the house.
Mr. Cotter asked how long does it take to modify the Code. Ms. Noble - Flading said typically,
about three to four months.
Ms. Newell said they should vote on each of the variances individually and the discussion of
each variance should be separated from one another.
Mr. Blosser suggested that the Board recommend that a definition be added in the Code, and that
the City ordinance be modified to eliminate the 720 - square foot maximum size regulation and
require that an accessory structure is not larger than the house.
Mr. Wiland said he would like the Board to respond to Variance 1 for the detached accessory
structure and he was withdrawing Variances 2 through 4.
Mr. Cotter said if the Board disapproved Variance 1 tonight and next month, the Code was
changed, there would be no issue.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Noble - Flading requested that when each Board member vote on the motion, they state how
each of the three criteria is met.
Mr. Blosser made a motion to accept the withdraw of the Variance requests 2, 3, and 4, and
move that the Board find that the footprint of the structure is not being increased or decreased
and that through testimony here tonight the Board has determined that there is a structural
difficulty that needs to be addressed and that the repair and improvement that will be done will
rectify that which will not negate a non - conforming use previously approved through being
grandfathered in.
Ms. Noble - Flading expressed a concern for the motion and clarified the applicant is not asking
for an appeal to staffs interpretation of the Code. He is asking for a variance. She said the
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 9 of 10
Board could act on the variance with a motion stating that the approval of the variance was based
on the fact that it was not clear what constitutes as maintenance, alteration, or repair. She said
without the applicant withdrawing the application and asking for an administrative appeal the
Board must act on the pending application.
Ms. Newell said the point was that the applicant does not need a variance for the 720 -foot
structure, it is grandfathered and considered a legal non-conforming structure.
Mr. Blosser said the way the Board was going with the proposed motion, they accepted the
premise that what the applicant was doing was beyond repairing and it was a substantial
modification of the structure. He said the Board accepted that premise which Planning made.
However through most of the Board's discussion, they really do not agree or disagree on whether
the Code contains a definition.
Mr. Cotter asked that the last motion be repeated because he understood that the Board said to
staff that there was no need for a variance.
Ms. Noble - Flading said the applicant would have to withdraw the application and file an
administrative appeal.
Mr. Blosser accepted the applicant's withdrawal of Variances 2, 3, and 4.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Noble - Flading framed the motion on Case 08-083V to approve a structure to exceed the
720 - square -foot maximum sgmxe footage of a detached structure, based on the condition that the
structure does not exceed 1,059- square -feet.
Keith Blosser moved that they adopt the motion framed by Ms. Noble - Flading, and that each
Board member state their own reasonings of supporting. Mr. Skillman seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Cotter, yes; explaining that he voted in favor of granting this variance application because he
believed that there is a practical difficulty in that the only way to meet Code would be to tear
down part of the structure, the request is not of a recurring nature, it is particular to this land and
probably unusual in the zoning district that it exists;
Ms. Newell, yes; explaining that she voted in favor of granting this variance application because
there was the extenuating circumstance of a pre - existing structure considered a non - conforming
use that was not built by the owner and it had no impact in creating the existing condition, there
is no clear definition of repair or alteration in the Code, there are no alterations to the existing
square footage or changes to the use, and this is repair to a deficiency in the design of the
structure that is creating a continual drainage issue problem with the structure;
Mr. Shankar, no; explaining that he voted against granting this variance application because
many improvements have been made and although the footprint has not changed, the non-
conforming structure is altered, and therefore, it must meet the current the Code;
Mr. Skillman, yes; explaining that he voted in favor of granting this variance application because
there are special conditions and d- cumstances that exist on this property based on structural non-
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
MAY 22, 2008
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614 -410 -4600
Fax: 614 -410 -4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
1. Accessory Structure Variance 37 South Riverview Street
08 -031V Variance
Proposal: A 792 - square -foot, detached garage that exceeds the maximum
size permitted for accessory structures and is located within the
required rear yard setback. The lot is located at the northwest
intersection of South Riverview Street and Spring Hill within the
located Historic District.
Request: Review and approval of a variance to the provisions of Code
Sections 153.074(A) and 153.074(E)(1).
Applicant: Brion D. Jones; represented by Dan Custer, Finish Line Building,
Inc.
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: Sean Cotter made a motion, seconded by Victoria Newell, to approve this
variance application finding that the proposed setback meets the criteria, with two conditions:
1) The rear yard setback encroachment be limited to 10 feet 10 inches; and
2) The applicant work with Land Use and Long Range Planning during the construction
process to ensure that existing site features are protected.
*Dan Custer, agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE #1: 4 — 0.
RECORDED VOTES MOTION #1:
Drew Skillman
Absent
Bangalore Shankar
Yes
Keith Blosser
Yes
Sean Cotter
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
Page 1 or 2
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
September 25, 2008 — Minutes
Page 10 of 10
integrality of the building which presents a practical difficulty, there are no substantial or adverse
affects that will be created by modification of this building, and there is the lack of Code
definitions for repair or alterations; and
Mr. Blosser, yes; explaining that he voted in favor of granting this variance for all the reasons
previously mentioned by the other Board members, that there was a non - conforming variance
previously granted, that the character of use or square footage is being substantially changed,
updates are being done to the facility to make it safe and to correct structural problems and
defects which are well within the current verbiage of the Code. He said a vote against this
variance would send the wrong message to the public that the City does not want owners to
maintain their properties and make sure that defects in the construction or the engineering could
not be addressed. He anticipated that the property owners would not come forward to make
these corrections that could, in some cases be life threatening. (Approved 4 —1.)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Flora I Rd err, and Libby Farley
Administrative Assistants
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
MAY 22, 2008
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614 -410 -4600
Fax: 614 -410 -4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
1. Accessory Structure Variance 37 South Riverview Street
08 -031V Variance
Proposal: A 792 - square -foot, detached garage that exceeds the maximum
size permitted for accessory structures and is located within the
required rear yard setback. The lot is located at the northwest
intersection of South Riverview Street and Spring Hill within the
located Historic District.
Request: Review and approval of a variance to the provisions of Code
Sections 153.074(A) and 153.074(E)(1).
Applicant: Brion D. Jones; represented by Dan Custer, Finish Line Building,
Inc.
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: Sean Cotter made a motion, seconded by Victoria Newell, to approve this
variance application finding that the proposed setback meets the criteria, with two conditions:
1) The rear yard setback encroachment be limited to 10 feet 10 inches; and
2) The applicant work with Land Use and Long Range Planning during the construction
process to ensure that existing site features are protected.
*Dan Custer, agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE #1: 4 — 0.
RECORDED VOTES MOTION #1:
Drew Skillman
Absent
Bangalore Shankar
Yes
Keith Blosser
Yes
Sean Cotter
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
Page 1 or 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
MAY 22, 2008
1. Accessory Structure Variance
08-031V
Continued
37 South Riverview Street
Variance
MOTION #2: Sean Cotter made a motion, seconded by Keith Blosser, to approve this variance
application finding that the size of the accessory structure meets the criteria, with one condition:
1) The size of the accessory structure not exceed 792 square feet.
*Dan Custer, agreed to the above condition.
VOTE #2: 4-0.
RECORDED VOTES MOTION #2:
Drew Skillman
Absent
Bangalore Shankar
Yes
Keith Blosser
Yes
Sean Cotter
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
RESULT: The Variance application was approved.
STAFF TIFICATION
yammy
Senior 1
Noble- Flading
anner
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2008 — Minutes
Page 2 of 4
1• Accessory Structure Variance
08-031V 37 South Riverview Street
Jennifer Rauch presented this request for review and approval of a variance application Variance allow
an accessory structure for an existing two -story single family residence which exceeds the
maximum size permitted by Code and located within the required rear yard setback She reported
that the applicant was proposing to construct a 79 2 - square -foot, 1 %- story detached garage in the
rear of the lot. The proposed structure is located 10 feet 10 inches into the required 15 -foot rear
Yard setback. Code Iimits the maximum size of a detached structure to 30 percent of the
principle structure, not to exceed 720 - square -feet and the proposed structure exceeds these
requirements by 7 2- square -feet. Code also requires that a building be located within the
buildable area of the lot and the proposal is to locate the building approximately 4 feet 2 inches
from the rear property line.
Ms. Rauch explained that in Planning's opinion, this proposal meets the review criteria of
Section 153.237 for these two variance requests. Planning recommends that the application be
approved based on the fact that it meets the criteria with the following three conditions:
1) The size of the accessory structure not exceed 792 square feet;
2) The rear yard setback encroachment be limited to 10 feet 10 inches; and
3) The applicant work with Land Use and Long Range Planning during the construction
Process to ensure that existing site features are protected.
Mr. Cotter asked that it be clarified how the first criteria regarding the special circumstances was
considered to have been met. Ms. Rauch explained that it was th City's desire to preserve trees
and the location that was being proposed was designated to prevent the removal of two healthy
and mature trees. Tammy Noble- Flading added Planning was concerned that if the 15 -foot
setback was required to be met, it would jeopardize the trees and root systems. She said this
area is unique because of the Historic District, it looks and functions differently than a suburban
community and in this particular instance, there are natural features that Planning thinks should
be preserved.
Victoria Newell asked if the proposed detached garage had been reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board (APB). Ms. Rauch confirmed that the ARB had reviewed and
approved the request at the May 23, 2008 meeting contingent upon approval by the BZA.
Ms. Newell said this structure had a very unique history in Dublin and felt there were some
extreme circumstances in this particular case. She noted that most structures in Historic Dublin
had detached garages located along the street or alley, therefore the proposed structure was very
much in keeping to what exists.
Mr. Shankar asked if setting the building within the four -foot setback was a safety issue because
of traffic along the alleyway. Ms. Rauch stated that the Engineering Department had reviewed
this proposal and did not indicate any safety concern.
Motion #1 and Vote — Setback Variance
Mr. Cotter made Motion #1 and Ms. Newell seconded the motion to approve the variance
application for the required rear yard accessory structure setback with the following conditions:
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
May 22, 2008 — Minutes
Page 3 of 4
1) The size of the accessory structure not exceed 792 square feet;
2) The rear yard setback encroachment be limited to 10 feet 10 inches; and
3) The applicant work with Land Use and Long Range Planning during the construction
process to ensure that existing site features are protected.
Dan Custer, Finish Line Building, Inc., who represented the applicant, Brion D. Jones, was
sworn in at the start of the meeting. He agreed to the above three conditions when asked.
The vote on Motion #1 was as follows: Mr. Shankar, yes; Mr. Blosser, yes; Ms. Newell, yes;
and Mr. Cotter, yes. (Approved 4 0.)
Motion #2 and Vote — Size Variance
Mr. Cotter made Motion #2 and Keith Blosser seconded to approve a size variance for this
proposed accessory structure with the condition that it not exceed 792 square feet in size. The
vote on Motion #2 was as follows: Mr. Shankar, yes; Mr. Blosser, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; and Mr.
Cotter, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.)
2. Muirfield V' age, Phase 4, P rt 1 8510 Gullane urt
08 -028V ante height V 'ante
avid Strombe Planning Assi t, presented t s request for rev' w and approval f a fence
height vari for a site cont gas le-f. ly residence w' an attached ge and rear
yard patio. Stromberg s d the legally no - conforming fen on the north pr erty line is six
feet in h ght and the fen on the south pr erty line is five eat in hei t.
is to located along ear property 1' gh proposed fen
connecting vn the two exist' side fences.
Str berg pointed t that two fee of the ten -foot asement along a rear prope line
e roaches into th ear yard. He s ' the applicant is roposing to con ct 60 feet of ix-foot
all wooden do ared —style fenc .The applicant ' requesting a v . ce to increase a height
of the fence m four to six f and a variance enclose the pe i eter of the re yard with a
solid fence. ode permits s d fencing only and a deck or tio, not the peri eter of a yard.
Mr. Stet erg noted that a properties to a north and east o not have fenc" g along the bik
path. a said a five -fo slotted fence w installed alon a western edg of the bike pa y
the Uder during th onstruction of a subdivision in 76 and subst la l landscaping ists
to creep it and it reates a tunnel- ' e feeling alon a bike path. a said several operty
wners located ng the bike pat ave used lands ing to delineat eir property Ii s.
Mr. Stromb g reviewed eac of the varianc eview criteria Section 153.2 listed in the
Planning eport and base on that review ecommends di pproval of bo the fence height
variant request and t perimeter fenc request for th following reas s as listed in)(e
PI ng Report:
,,k') The exis ` g nonconform' g fences withi the developm t are not uni to this
particu site. These si bons occur o arty propertie at have fence constructed
prior the adoption o e current Cod .
2) N conforming s lures are tempo ry in nature an will eventually removed while
variance confe a permanent vilege on this rpperty. The entual aim of e
nonconfornun egulations is to ring all propert` s into eventual mpliance, rather an
extending tli situation to mor properties.
CITY OF DUBLIN..
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614- 410 -4600
Fox: 614-410-4747
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
APRIL 24, 2008
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
1. Galway Estates — Accessory Structure Size Variance 80 Browning Court
08 -021V Variance
Proposal: A detached 715- square -foot one -car garage and pool house that
exceeds the maximum total permitted size of accessory structures
for a single - family lot within the Galway Estates development.
The site is zoned Rl, Restricted Suburban Residential District and
is located on the north side of Browning Court, approximately 625
feet east of the intersection with Dublin Road.
Request: Review and approval of a variance under the provisions of Code
Section 153.074.
Applicant: Robert Haring, owner; represented by Heidi Bolyard, Richard
Taylor Architects.
Planning Contacts: Tammy Noble - Flading, Senior Planner and Jonathan Papp,
Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, tnoble @dublin.oh.us orjpapp@dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: Drew Skillman made a motion, seconded by Sean Cotter, to approve this variance
application finding that all the criteria had been met.
VOTE: 3-2.
RESULT: The Variance application was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Drew Skillman
Yes
Bangalore Shankar
No
Keith Blosser
Yes
Sean Cotter
Yes
Victoria Newell
No
STAFF CERTIFICATION
lan Papp
` Planner
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2008 — Minutes
Page 2 of 7
,Alotions and Vot — Election of Uff rs
Mr. Blosser and a other mern greed to forego ing an Executive ession to discuss e
election of o tiers. Mr. Blos made the motio o elect Bangalore hankar as Chair the
Board and I. Skillman secs ed the motion. a vote was as faI s; Ms. Newell, es; Mr.
Cotter, y ; Mr. Shankar, y , Mr. Blosser, yes d Mr. Skillman es. (Approved 5 }
Mr tosser made the otion to elect S Cotter as Vice C air of the Board Mr. Skillman
nded the tnotio .The vote was allows: Ms. N ,yes; Mr. Cotte yes; Mr. Blosser,
es; Mr. Shankar es; and Mr. Skill an, yes. (Approv 5 — 0.) ,
Mr. Shank stated that it w an honor to se as Chair, and o behalf of the B , he
express precation to Pi ng for research' g and presenting cts which make i sier for
the Booed to make decisio
,P►.amuaisrranve
or
Jennifer Rauch ' traduced Janatha app, a planner o recently joined a P Rauch said a ruralized orienta ' n session for the o newly ap point Boarion members Newell and P1 ng and Zonin ommissioner, Ri d Tay on May 6, 08. She said all oard members w invited to atten Ms. Rauch ard mem rs wanted to re to summer ho for June, July d August mgin
m gs at 6:30 p.m. a consensus w to continue holdi meetings at 7 p.
Mr. Shankar :7d in those who w med to speak in regards to the cases oe Agenda. /
1. Galway Estates — Accessory Structure Size Variance 80 Browning Court
08 -021V Variance
Jonathan Papp presented the Planning Report for this variance request for review and approval
for the construction of a 715- square -foot, detached one -car garage, pool house and small covered
patio along the western side of the property. He said the site contains an 800 - square -foot pool.
The variance request is to construct an accessory structure which would exceed the maximum
cumulative area permitted by six percent or 263 square feet.
Mr. Papp reported that Planning considered four review criteria and said it is Planning's opinion
that this variance request should be disapproved because there are solutions that would allow the
applicant to construct an addition that would conform with the Zoning Code without the need for
this variance. He said there are no special circumstances that are peculiar to the site; the literal
interpretation of the Zoning Code calculates the maximum permitted accessory structure or use
square footage for all residential properties the same way, no matter which zoning district it is
located; and by constructing the existing pool, the applicant reduced the additional amount of
accessory use or structure square footage remaining on the site, therefore the applicant has
imposed a special circumstance on the site.
Dublin Board of zoning Appeals
April 24, 2008 — Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Mr. Blosser asked about alternative suggestions provided to the applicant. Tammy Noble -
Flading said the alternative options suggested to the applicant did not meet the exact needs of the
applicant, so therefore the request is before the Board.
Robert Haring, the applicant, and Richard Taylor, Richard Taylor Architects, representing the
applicant, were sworn in at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Taylor said this area of Dublin contains houses significantly smaller, relative to the lot size.
He said Dr. Haring's house footprint covers only 7'/7 percent of the lot area, while the largest
house on Browning Court covers less than I I percent of the lot area. Ile said in Coventry
Woods and tine other newer neighborhoods, the typical house footprint size is approximately 20
percent of the lot. Mr. Taylor stated that Dr. paring's house covers a great deal less of the total
lot than is typical in Dublin and if the existing house was larger on this lot, it would make the
size of the proposed accessory use acceptable.
Mr. Taylor said the other alternative locations for the proposed structure include locating it
adjacent to existing sunroonz, which would block all of the views from the sunroom, or Io I It
it oil file sides of the house, which would require relocating the pool mecharnicaI equipment and
utility lines, He said there is no other practical place to locate the detached garage and making it
smaller would make it less useful as a garage. He pointed out that tine pool existed when the
applicant purchased the house, so lie did not impose this upon himself and all he was asking was
to add this small addition to it.
Mr. Skillman asked for the maximum percentage of the lot area that a primary structure can
occupy. Ms. Noble - Flading answered the total lot coverage would be 45 percent. Ms. Rauch
clarified that the lot coverage includes the house, as well as the driveway and pool.
Mr. Skillman noted that the accessory structure was based on the percent of the size of the house,
but yet the size of the house could be increased, thus allowing the size of the accessory structure
to be increased. Mr. Taylor said the accessory building would bring the total lot coverage,
including driveway, pool, and all accessory uses to 23 percent of the lot total.
Victoria Newell suggested there could be an addition made to the existing house or the size of
the proposed structure could be decreased. She noted that the proposed plan showed a 15 -foot
wide by 24 -foot long garage, and that many garages in Dublin are 12 feet wide and 22 feet long,
so it is a little larger than what the standards are in the area_ She asked why there was a concern
about the size of the structure being reduced. Mr said the structure could be reduced, but
while graphic standards do list that, that was not really a practical size for today's large vehicles.
He said it could be slightly narrower, but they could not reduce the length,
Ms. Newell confirmed that the calculation for the area of tine structure included the overhang on
the front of the building. She added that was another potential for gaining a little savings on this
structure by reducing that covered area, still giving the content area space within the structure.
Ms. Newell suggested a few tweaks of area might get them a little closer to meeting the
provisions of the Zoning Code.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2008 — Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Mr. Taylor said in the preliminary design process several locations for the proposed structure
were suggested, and they would not be asking for a variance if they thought there was a site that
worked better and also met all the requirements. Mr. Taylor said adding a small addition onto
the side would look out of scale, and not coordinate with the massing of the house. He said
architecturally, he thought it would look like they stuck a building onto the side of the structure.
Mr. Taylor said this proposal was the best that balanced the client's needs, the existing site
conditions including the architecture of the house, and the utility and pool equipment locations
without going very far beyond the Code requirements. He said 263 square feet out of almost
45,000 -square feet of lot area was a minor infraction on the total.
Mr. Skillman agreed with the practicality and sensibility of putting the structure where it was
proposed. He said he also agreed that adding to the building could not be done practically
without making it look like an add -on.
Ms. Newell suggested a trellis structure, colonnade, or something which would work into the
architecture of the building and actually physically attach it to the structure so it actually
conformed to the Code. She said it would allow the area and the design proposed, but would
provide a structure that was united with the existing house.
Mr. Blosser said from an aesthetic and usability standpoint, he thought this was very good. He
said he was sympathetic to the fact that total coverage of the lot would be 23 percent, which is
much less than the 45 percent. However, he agreed with staff because it was just a matter of
whether or not the criteria are met. He agreed that attaching it to the existing house would throw
it out of balance. He suggested if the garage was narrowed from 15 feet, and the permanent
awning was moved back a little, that the 263 square feet overage could probably be reduced.
Mr. Taylor confirmed that the entire overhang was 140 square feet, but he did not know if they
could make modifications to decrease the proposed structure 263 square feet. He said they
would be willing to resize it a bit if it could improve that somewhat.
Mr. Skillman asked what the Board had done in the past regarding accessory structures. Ms.
Rauch indicated that no information was available at this time, but the result would depend upon
the circumstances of the individual lot.
Mr. Shankar said there is no control over the footprint of the original house. He suggested a
compromise be made to address this situation. He said there is about a six percent excess of
what the Board wants.
Mr. Taylor mentioned that he understood that the Board wanted to avoid setting precedence, but
that they also look at what the future is going to bring here. He pointed out that this is a very
desirable street. He said the houses are getting a bit aged and the possibility of those houses
being purchased and larger houses being built there some day is a reality. Mr. Taylor reiterated
that he thought they were meeting the spirit of the Code.
Dublin Board of Zoning Appeals
April 24, 2008 — Minutes
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Skillman said this proposal meets all practical and sensible construction standards and he
saw no other practical option.
Ms. Newell confirmed the pool was considered an accessory structure. She said there are a lot of
accessory structures on this one property, and there are a lot of properties in Dublin that have
similar circumstances. Ms. Newell said she was struggling with the presentation of a hardship
because it had been stated that other residences in Dublin had an average 20 percent lot
coverage. She asked what lot size was being used for that comparison to the applicant's.
Mr. Taylor said similarly sized lots were compared to the applicant's. He gave an example of
the 7,000- square -foot houses on Browning. Court where the houses already are much larger on
the lot in terms of the lot coverage which offer the opportunity to add large additions or
accessory buildings, as long as they do not exceed the 30 percent of the primary structure's
square footage.
Mr. Taylor stated that the applicant is being penalized for having a small house on a big lot. He
said in terms of total lot coverage, they could cover the lot with a house that would be almost
20,000- square -feet because they are allowed 45 percent lot coverage. He said lie was not saying
the Code was unfair or they are rationing for special permission, but they believe the proposal
improves the property, satisfies the needs of the owner, and only asks for a small amount of extra
space on a very large lot.
Mr. Skillman inquired why the variance for the Indian Run Hill case included with the Planning
Report history was approved.
Ms. Noble - Flading cautioned the Board that without any details of that case it is hard to draw
comparison of the situation. She said the intent of the Code is to ensure the principal use of the
structure is dominate and noticeable, and that the accessory structure remains subordinate to the
primary structure. She said the burden of responsibility in this case is practical difficulty.
Mr. Blosser said he thought it was very compelling that there would be 23 percent lot coverage.
He said all the arguments had merit and lie would love to see this project go through as proposed,
but from a practical difficulty standpoint, lie could not get over the fact that the proposed
structure is so small that it could be modified to meet Code.
Ms. Newell reiterated that she struggled with granting this variance on this site when she did not
see the hardship in place and the door it opens up for other residents to ask for the same
opportunity. She said she had not been convinced that an addition can not be put on the house in
some way, or that the overall square footage of that structure could be reduced to meet Code.
Mr. Taylor said reducing the proposed structure by 263 square feet would be more than one -third
of the addition, and does not make the project worthwhile. He said it would be more expensive,
difficult, and useless to attach it to the house. He said the spirit of the proposal is well within
what has been approved for other residences in Dublin. He said they could increase the size of
the house to allow for a larger accessory structure, but he thought the goal was to have the least
amount of lot coverage. He said this proposal achieves that.
Dublin Board of Zoning Apps
April 24, 2008 — Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Motion and Vote
Mr. Skillman made a motion to approve this variance to allow an accessory structure which
exceeds the Code by 263 square feet, based on the proposal meeting the review criteria. Mi.
Cotter seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, no; Mr. Blosser, yes; Mr.
Shankar, no; Mr. Cotter, yes; and Mr. Skillman, yes. (Approved 3 — 2.)
Code Armen eats - Board of ring Appeals Cod endments
07 -102
Tammy No e- l'lading presen this Administrativ equest for revie and a recorrimen on
of appro to City Council amend various s tons of the Dubli ning Code relat to the
gen purpose and o ons of the Board o ning Appeals. a said in Plannin opinion,
the roposed modifi ons meet the pu ose and goals o ned by the Zoni Code and
commendations o e City Law Di r or. Ms. Noble ading said this 'cular subject
matter deals wi ea variances. S explained that the urrent Code stat t all the criteria
must be met i rder for the Boar recommend app Val of a variance lication. She said
decision a by the Supreme urt (Duncan v. N * age of Middlefiel stated that the s d
is too b ensome for an ap ication and that a 'stations can be a roved based on a jority
of s ards being met. a said the standar for use variant ould remain the e. She
p nted three stand within the propo Code modificati that must be met:
1) That spec' conditions and ' umstances apply t e property;
2) That practical difficul s not self- created; d
3) Tlta ere is no adverse ect or the intent d purpose of the lations is not im d
b e approval of th ariance.
M oble- Flading fu er explained that . addition, two of a four following s lards must
met:
1) That tantial justice is ained; or
2) Tha the applicant is t deprived of ri s that are guaran ed to others in si filar
c' curnstances and di 'ct; or
3) at there is no verse affect on d ivery of services, o the City's servi are not
impacted in an ay; or
That the pra cal difficulty co a relieved by so other method tha ould follow the
Code.
Ms. Nobl lading said this roposed Code a ndment was rev' ed and approva was
reco led by the Planni and Zoning Co fission on April 10 Q08 as presented. a said
PI g recommends th the Board support ese proposed am ments.
eith Blosser said a proposed crit a have been ado ed by most citi in Ohio and if
approved by Co cil, the Board wo d use the propos criteria to make a decisions. lie
pointed out the Board will a to be careful n to use past prec ces set for decisi s
they make
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
APRIL 28, 2005
CITY OF DUBLIN-
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier.Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone: 614.410.4600
Fax: 614410 -4747
Web Site: w dublin.oh.us
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
6. Variance — 05 -049V — 5385 Indian Hill Road — Accessory Structure
Location: 1.8 acres located on the south side of Indian Hill Road, approximately
2,000 feet north of River Forest Road.
Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: A variance to Code Section 153.074 to allow the maximum cumulative
area of accessory structures to exceed 30 percent of the residence living area for a
storage shed and greenhouse.
Proposed Use: A proposed 480 - square foot storage shed with an attached 200 -
square foot greenhouse for a 4,800 -square foot residence with an 854- square foot
swimming pool.
Applicant: Brad and Ana Getz, 5385 Indian Hill Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017;
represented by Chris and James Orr, 3610 Smiley Road, Hilliard, Ohio 43026.
Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner.
Contact Information: (614) 410- 4675/Email: chusak @dublin.oh.us.
MOTION: Keith Blosser made a motion, seconded by Drew Skillman, to approve this
variance because the majority of the lots within the River Forest subdivision are
approximately two acres in size. The variance preserves the intent of the Code and meets
the practical difficulty criteria because of the above average size of the applicant's lot, and
granting the requested increase in the size of accessory structures of two percent would not
present a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, with two conditions:
1) That the applicant obtain all necessary permits before construction; and
2) That the existing 160 - square foot shed be demolished prior to the construction of
the proposed shed.
*Chris Orr agreed to the above conditions.
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
APRIL 28, 2005
6. Variance — 05 -049V — 5385 Indian Hill Road — Accessory Structure
(Continued)
Findings:
1) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
district under the terms of the zoning ordinance;
2) That special conditions and circumstances on this site do not result from the action
of the applicant;
3) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to this land
involved which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district; and
4) That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant special
privileges that are denied by the zoning ordinance to other lands or structures in the
same zoning district.
5) That granting the variance will not adversely affect health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed development, be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to private property or public
improvements in the vicinity.
VOTE: 5-0.
RESULT: This variance was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jeffrey Ferezan
Yes
Ray Harpham
Yes
Drew Skillman
Yes
Bangalore Shankar
Yes
Keith Blosser
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Claudia Husak
Planner
Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
MARCH 31, 2004
CITY OF DUBLIN -
Division of Pk o g
5800 shy -Iwo hood
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Mme/1DD: 614-4104600
Fax: 6144104747
Web Sits www.dubkoh.us
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
1. Variance 04 -014V — 7172 Grandee Cliffs Drive
Location: 0.75 -acre located on the east side of Grandee Cliffs Drive,
approximately 240 feet south of Bright Road (Grandee Cliff Estates).
Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: Review and approval of a variances to the following Code Sections:
1) - Section 153.074 (E)(1) to reduce the required rear yard from 50 feet to 36
feet; and
2) Section 153.074 to permit an increase in the maximum cumulative area of
an accessory structure from 30 percent of the primary use living space to
35 percent.
Proposed Use: A 650- square foot swimming pool for an existing 1,863 - square foot
single - family home.
Applicant: Lynn and Neil Johnson, 7172 Grandee Cliffs Drive, Dublin, Ohio
43017; represented by: Charles Lambert, Commercial Pools, 5850 Sawmill Road,
Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Joanne Ochal, Planner.
MOTION #1: To approve the rear yard setback variance because the location of the
Billingsley Creek and associated floodplain encompasses more than 50 percent of this lot
which reduces the buildable area of this lot, and effectively reduces the rear yard creating a
hardship on the property not seen on properties of similar size and shape, with the
following six conditions:
1) That the applicant obtain all necessary permits before construction;
2) That the electrical line running in the backyard be completely buried;
3) That the fence be brought up to current Building Codes regarding access gates
locking device, subject to the Division of Building Standards approval;
4) That the mechanical unit must be screened per Code;
5) That the existing 140 - square foot shed be torn down prior to completion of
the swimming pool; and
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
MARCH 31, 2004
1. Variance 04 -014V — 7172 Grandee Cliffs Drive (Continued)
6) That the swimming pool equipment be relocated inside the buildable
area of the lot.
*Neil Johnson, agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 3-0.
RESULT: This variance was approved.
MOTION iM To approve the variance to increase the maximum cumulative area of an
too` accessory structure from 30 percent of the primary use living space to 35 percent finding
that the floodplain, location of the house, and the size of the lot, creates a hardship and
safety issues.
VOTE: 2-1.
RESULT: This variance was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
MOTION #1
MOTION #2
Brent Davis
Yes
Yes
Jeffrey Ferezan
Absent
Absent
G. Lynn McCurdy
Absent
Absent
Ray Harpham
Yes
No
Drew Skillman
Yes
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
�9 )'-� ct - r
Frank A. Ciarochi
Acting Planning Director
Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
July 26, 2001
►:ri .►r 1►I 111.iN
Divisiaa of Plaaning
5800 Shier -Raigs Road
DuMn, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone/iD0:614-41046D0 The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
fox: 614 -161 -6566
Web Sile: www.dubhn.oh.us
2. Variance 01 -075V - 6629 David Road
Location: 0.47 -acre located on the west side of David Road, approximately
650 feet north of West Dublin - Granville Road (SR 161).
Existing Zoning: R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District.
Request:. A variance to Section 153.074 to permit an increase in the permitted
area of a detached garage from 30 percent of the livable area of the primary
structure (321.6 square feet) to 54 percent (576 square feet).
Proposed Use: A 576 square foot, detached garage for an existing 1,072
square foot single - family home with an attached garage.
Applicant: Ethel Schnell, 6629 David Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented
by Virgil Schnell and Dan Marburger.
Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To disapprove this application finding that the structure does not meet
Code, and the Board is unable to identify the required hardship or practical difficulty
standards.
VOTE: 5-0.
RESULT: This application was disapproved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Brent Davis
Yes
Laurie Elsass
Yes
Jennifer Malinoski
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
G. Lynn McCurdy
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
August 24, 2000
crn ( 1 , m mx The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
Division of Planning 3. Variance 00 -083V - 7211 River Knolls Place - River Knolls Subdivision —
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, 0hio 43016 -1236 Lot # 6
Location: 0.89 acres located on the west side of River Knolls Place,
Foy: 614.161.65666 6
Phone/FDD:614.761.65 approximately 290 feet west of Riverside Drive.
Web Site: www.dublin.ob.us Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: Variance to Code Section 153 -074 to expand the maximum allowable
gross floor area of an accessory structure from 30 percent of the primary use
living space to 34 percent.
Proposed Use: A 850 square foot remodeled Iog cabin to serve as a nanny's
living quarters.
Applicant: Daniel Beierle and Anne Joliot, 7211 River Knolls Place, Dublin,
Ohio 43016,
Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner.
MOTION: To approve this variance application with five conditions:
1) That the new home office expansion be completed and a final occupancy
certificate be issued before a final occupancy certificate is issued for the
expansion of the accessory structure;
2) That the accessory structure be used solely as a domestic servant's quarters,
including a nanny's quarters; and that in the time when a nanny is not employed
on these premises, the accessory use must not ever be used as a rental property,
guest house, second dwelling, or any other use that would not be included in the
definition of domestic servant's quarters;
3) That the applicant submit a sample board of materials planned for the addition
and remodeling, subject to staff approval;
4) That windows on the north face of the dormer not be closer than three feet to the
property line and that this addition comply with all Building Codes; and
5) That the limitations on use for the accessory structure be recorded with the
Franklin County Recorder's Office as a deed restriction, subject to the Law
Directors approval.
*Daniel Beierle agreed to the conditions.
VOTE: 4 -0.
RESULT: This variance was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Brent Davis
Yes
Chester Porembski
Yes
Laurie Elsass
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
Shelly Petite
Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Anne Wanner
Planner
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
DECEMBER 16, 1999
CITY OF DUBLIN
Division of Planning
5800 Shier -Rugs Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
Phone/W: 614.761 -6550
Fax: 614 -761 -6566
Web She: www.dublin.oh.us
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting.
1. Variance 99 -105V - 4338 Bright Road
Location: 15.74 acres located on the north side of Bright Road, approximately 1,600
feet east of Riverside Drive (SR 257).
Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: A variance to Section 153.074 to permit an increase in the permitted size of
an accessory structure from 25 percent of the livable area of the principal structure to
33 percent (from 1,819 square feet to 2,400 square feet).
Proposed Else: The construction of a 60' x 40' barn (2,400 square feet) to the rear of
an existing 7,274 square foot single - family residence.
Applicant: Anthony R. Weiher, 4338 Bright Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
MOTION: To approve this variance with seven conditions:
1) That the use of this accessory structure be clearly defined and limited to storage
of the resident's equipment and vehicles, a "hobby" workshop for this residence,
and that it cannot be used for living or business purposes, including without
limitation, the rehabilitation and sales of automobiles for profit under any
circumstances;
2) That water and sewer services not be extended to this building to limit
inappropriate reuse in the future;
3) That the two existing accessory buildings be removed from the site prior to
issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure;
4) That the accessory structure be screened on all sides by a minimum of 14
evergreen trees (five to six feet in height at installation), subject to staff
approval;
5) That if the parcel would be reduced from 15.74 acres, the variance be rescinded
requiring that the approved barn structure be removed from the site;
6) That the variance and these conditions be recorded with the Franklin County
Auditor's office, and that the applicant show proof of the recording prior to
issuance of building permits; and
Page 1 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
DECEMBER 16, 1999
1. Variance 99 -105V - 4338 Bright Road (Cont.)
7) That the current attached garage of 650 square feet be converted into living space
within twelve months of building the new accessory structure.
*Glen Aurelius, representing the owner, accepted the above conditions.
VOTE: 4-0-1
RESULT: This variance was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Brent Davis
Yes
Chester Porembski
Yes
Ruth Meeker Reiss
Abstain
Amy Salay
Yes
William Sherman
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara Clarke
Planning Director
Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
OCTOBER 28, 1999
rrn ill.' ut HLIN
The Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action at this meeting:
3. Variance 99 -103V - 8485 Sawmill Road
Location: 0.90 acre located on the west side of Sawmill Road, approximately 2,5
,500 feet north
of Summitview Road (140 feet south of Franklin- Delaware County line).
Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: A variance to Section 153.074 to permit an increase in the permitted size of an
accessory structure from 25 percent of the livable area of the principal structure to 33 percent
(from 484 square feet to 640 square feet).
Proposed Use: A 640 square foot barn to the rear of an existing 1,936 square foot single - family
residence which is being relocated to this site.
Applicant: Robert Briggs, 8485 Sawmill Road, Powell, Ohio 43065.
MOTION: To approve this variance application with seven conditions:
1) That the size of the new structure be limited to 640 square feet;
2) That the location of the structure be in conformance with applicable code standards, dependent
upon building height, subject to staff approval;
3) That the landscaping be installed around the structure be subject to staff approval;
4) That the use of this accessory structure be clearly defined and limited to storage of the occupant's
vehicles and a "hobby" workshop for this residence, and that it not be used for living or business
purposes under any circumstances;
5) That water and sewer services not be extended to this building to limit inappropriate reuse in the
future;
6) That the structure be limited to wood siding or board and batten, subject to staff approval; and
7) That all appropriate permits be secured for the structure.
*Mr. Briggs agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 4 -1 - 0
RESULT: This variance application was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Brent Davis
Yes
Chester Porembski
Yes
Ruth Meeker Reiss
Yes
Amy Salay
Abstain
William Sherman
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
q�l 61A__�h LO,_/
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
BOARD ORDER
APRIL 23, 1998
CITY OF DUBLIN
The Board of Zoning Appeals heard the variance application shown below on this date. Based
on its finding, the Board took the following action:
2. Variance 98 -033V - O'Shaughnessy Hills, Lots 6 - 9 - 4365 Woodland Avenue
Location: 0.9 acre located on the south side of Woodland Drive approximately 700 feet
east of Riverside Drive.
Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: A variance to Code Sections:
1) 153.074 to permit an increase in the maximum size of an accessory structure from
25 percent to 55 percent of the area occupied by the principal structure (from 550
square feet to 1,200 square feet);
2) 153.074(B) to permit an accessory structure to be located beside (not behind) the
primary structure; and
3) 153.205(A) to permit a gravel drive instead of the required hard- surfaced
driveway.
Proposed Use: A proposed 40' by 30' garage, for an existing 2,200 square foot single -
family residence with an attached garage.
Applicant: Philip Harris, 4365 Woodland Drive, Powell, Ohio 43065.
MOTION: To deny this variance as submitted.
VOTE: 4-0
RESULT: This variance was disapproved after a lengthy discussion. The Board members
were unable to identify a hardship to support variance #1 above.
RECORDED VOTES:
Brent Davis Absent
Chester Porembski Yes
Ruth Meeker Reiss Yes
Amy Salay Yes
William Sherman Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
City of Dublin Residential Parcels
Parcel Sizes and Quantities
5 Acres or Greater - Approximately 76 Parcels -
Zoned R, Rural District, and R -1, Restricted
Suburban Residential District
1 -5 Acres - Approximately 612 Parcels
- Less Than 1 Acre -Approximately 11,242 Parcels
—�
Dublin Corp Limit
"Most smaller parcels are located in planned districts
and may be subject to additional restrictions on accessory structures.
4
1
r�
arm
i
N
A
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
CITY OF KETTERING ZONING CODE
B. Standards for Accessory Uses and Structures
An accessory building may be erected detached from the principal building, however, no
detached accessory building shall be erected in any required yard except a rear yard, nor
occupy more than thirty -five (35) percent of the area of the required rear yard.
2. A detached accessory building shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height or the height of
the principle structure, whichever is less.
3. A detached accessory building shall be at least six (6) feet from any dwelling situated on
the same lot.
4. A detached accessory building not integrally joined to another accessory building shall be
located at least six (6) feet from such other accessory structure.
5. A detached accessory building shall be at least three (3) feet from all lot lines.
6. On a corner lot adjoining in the rear or the side lot line of a lot in an R District, any
accessory building or part thereof within twenty -five (25) feet of the common lot line
shall not be closer to the side street lot line than the least depth of the front yard required
on such other Iot fronting the side street. In no case shall any part of such accessory
building be closer to the side street lot line than the least width of the side yard required
for the principal building to which it is accessory.
7. Any accessory building, if not located in the rear yard, shall be an integral part of or
connected with the principal building to which it is accessory, and shall be so placed as to
meet all yard requirements for a principal building of the same heights and other
dimensions as such accessory building.
8. No accessory use or structure in any residential district, except an off - street parking area
subject to the provisions of Section 1173.03 off street Parking Standards, shall be
permitted nearer to any front lot line than sixty (60) feet, unless such use or structure is
contained within or constitutes an integral part of the principal building. However, if the
owner of a corner lot, with approval of the Zoning Administrator, designates the long
street lot line as the front lot line, then the requirement of this section shall apply to
establish the permitted distance or an accessory building from only the shorter street lot
line.
10 -021 ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
CITY OF OAKWOOD ZONING CODE
Sec. 402 Accessory Buildings, Bulk Regulations and Permitted Obstructions in Required
Setbacks and Yards
402.1 Accessory Structures and Uses
A. Purpose
Accessory buildings, structures and uses customarily incidental to and commonly
associated with a use allowed as a permitted or special use within a particular zoning
district may be allowed to occupy the same zoning lot as the permitted or special use. To
qualify as an accessory building, structure, or use, it must be operated and maintained
under the same ownership and on the same lot as the principal building, structure, or use
and must meet the definition for an accessory use stated in Title 3, Rules and Definitions.
B. Percentage Coverage of Zoning Lot and Required Yard
No detached accessory building or uses shall occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the
area of the yard within which such accessory structure is located.
C. Special Provisions Regarding Detached Structures and Uses in Rear Yards
1. As an exception to B., above, detached accessory structures, including all paved
and impervious surface areas, shall not occupy more than fifty percent (50 %))of a
required rear yard.
2. No detached accessory structures (except fence lines) in the rear yard shall be any
closer than three (3) feet to the principal structure.
3. On any corner lot located in the R -3, R -4 or R -5 zoning districts, no detached
accessory storage shed or structure intended exclusively for storage (other than a
traditional detached garage) shall cover more than ten percent (10 %) of a required
rear yard in an R -3 district, and no more than fifteen percent (15 %) of a required
rear yard in an R -4 or R -5 district; provided, however, no storage shed or structure
shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet in the R -3 district, nor more than
one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet in the R -4 or R -5 zoning districts. (Ord.
4494, effective 12/5/01).
D. Drainage Easements
Accessory buildings, structures or uses must not be located on or within drainage
easement created by a duly recorded document.
E. Height of Accessory Buildings and Structures
Except for flag poles, no detached accessory structure or building shall exceed twelve
(12) feet in height. Further, no detached accessory garage building or structure shall
exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. Height shall be measured from the mean elevation of
the finished lot grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure.
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
F. Attached Accessory Structures
An attached accessory structure must comply with all zoning district regulations
applicable to the principal building, structure or use to which it is accessory.
G. Detached Accessory Structures and Uses
Unless otherwise provided in subsection 402.2 below, detached accessory structures and
improvements shall:
1. Be located no closer to the front lot line than the principal dwelling on the lot for
detached accessory buildings.
2. Otherwise meet the yard requirements of the zoning district in which the proposed
accessory structure or use is to be located, as provided in Title 5, Zoning Districts.
H. Permitted Accessory Uses
1. Residential Districts
The following are accessory uses and structures permitted within all residential
zoning districts, subject to applicable requirements of the zoning district and Title
9, Design and Performance Standards.
a. Air conditioning/heat pump equipment
b. Arbor or trellises
C. Auction sales (See Section 404 Temporary Uses)
d. Convents, seminaries and, monasteries
e. Type B Child Day Care Home (See Design and Performance Standards,
901.3)
f. Deck
g. Dog house
h. Driveways up to twelve (12) feet width
i. Entrance pillars (See Design and Performance Standards, 901.9)
j. Earth satellite stations and electronic antenna
k. Fences and walls in accord with Title 4, General Provisions
1. Firewood storage
m. Flag poles (See Design and Performance Standards, 901.4)
n. Garden, greenhouse, conservatory, private
o. Garage
p. Garage sales
q. Gazebo
r. Home occupations
S. Hot tub
t. Mail box
U. Patio
V. Play houses and summer houses
w. Retaining walls
X. Service walks (See Design and Performance Standards, 901.8)
y. Sheds for storage of common household items
Z. Signs, in accord with Title 12, Signs
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
aa. Steps and ramps
bb. Storage of non - passenger vehicles (See Design and Performance Standards,
901.5)
cc. Swimming pools, private
dd. Terrace
ee. Yard lamp/light
ff. Vertical Projections
gg. Parking pads
2. Business Districts
The following are accessory uses and structures permitted within all business
districts, subject to applicable requirements of the zoning district and Title 9,
Design and Performance Standards.
a. Air conditioning/heat pump equipment
b. Arbor or trellises
C. Auction sales (See Section 404, Temporary Uses)
d. Deck
e. Dumpsters and garbage receptacles
f. Earth satellite stations and electronic antenna
g. Fences and walls in accord with Title 4, General Provisions
h. Garden, greenhouse, conservatory, private
i. Garage
j. Gazebo
k. Patio
1. Service walks (See Design and Performance Standards, 901.8)
m. Sheds for storage
n. Signs, in accord with Title 12, Signs
o. Steps and ramps
p. Terrace
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
DARBY TOWNSHIP ZONING RESOLUTION
Section 1003 — Accessory Structures in the A -1, U -1, and R -1 Zoning Districts
All accessory structures must meet the following requirements as well as the development
standards of the applicable zoning district:
1. Number. No more than one (1) accessory structure shall be permitted on any lot,
excluding detached garages.
2. Zoning certificate required. A zoning permit is required prior to the erection, addition or
alteration of an accessory structure located on any lot in conjunction with a permitted
principal structure.
3. Size and height. The maximum permitted size and height of an accessory structure shall
be based on the standards established in the following table.
Lot Size
Maximum Size of
Maximum Height
(measured from the finished grade
Accessory Building
to the mean slope of the roof)
Less than one 1) acre
580 square feet
15 feet
Equal to or greater than one (1) acre but
less than two 2 acres
1200 square feet
18 feet
Equal to or greater than two (2) acres but
less than five (5) acres
1600 square feet
25 feet
Five (5) acres or more
2160 square feet
25 feet
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
GROVE CITY ZONING
1137.08 PRIVATE GARAGES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PERMIT AND FEE
FOR PORTABLE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
Private garages in residential and apartment districts shall be so located and constructed as to
conform to such of the following requirements as shall be applicable considering the use for such
garage and the district in which it is located.
(a) Garages shall not be an accessory use to a lot in a residential type district unless such lot
is occupied by a residence or unless a building permit has been issued and construction
started on a residence building on such lot;
(b) Garage provisions, as an accessory use in a D -1, D -2 or A -1 District shall not provide for
more than two motor vehicles for each family for which such residence is arranged or
designed;
(c) When garage provision as an accessory use is built in a terrace or retaining wall on the
front or side of the lot, such garage shall not project in front of the terrace or retaining
wall more than three feet, and in no case above the level of the ground, or main floor of a
residence on an adjoining lot;
(d) No separate garage building shall be erected in a terrace or retaining wall closer to a
street than the required building line, or closer than minimum side yard requirement or
building line to an adjoining lot line. On corner lots, the separate garage building shall
not be closer to it than five feet to the lot line opposite the front lot line, nor closer than
the building line of the side street;
(e) All detached garages shall have such separation from residence or apartment as specified
in the Building Code.
(f) No part of any detached garage or accessory building shall be erected closer than three
feet to a side lot line on a lot having a width of sixty -five feet or less, at the building line,
closer than four feet to the side lot line on a lot having a width over sixty -five feet and not
more than seventy -five feet at the building line, or closer than five feet to a side lot line
on a lot seventy -five feet or more at the building line; except that, when the lot is less
than 110 feet in depth from the front property line and seventy -five feet or less at the
building line, no part of any detached garage or accessory building shall be erected closer
than three feet from the side lot line. No garage or accessory building shall be erected
nearer than twelve feet from a dwelling on an adjacent lot.
(Ord. C79 -74. Passed 1- 20 -75.)
(g) All accessory buildings up to and including 100 square feet of floor space and less than
seven feet high are considered portable and require a permit, the cost of which is five
dollars ($5.00). All buildings over 100 square feet shall be considered permanent and
require a permit as set forth in Chapter 1305. Portable buildings do not require permanent
foundations.
(Ord. C52 -78. Passed 8- 21 -78.)
(h) No detached garages and accessory buildings shall exceed a height of thirteen feet above
grade.
(Ord. C79 -74. Passed 1- 20 -75.)
10 -021 ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
MASON ZONING ORDINANCE
1147.3 ACCESSORY USES.
Accessory uses, building or other structures customarily incidental to any aforesaid permitted or
conditionally permitted uses may be established, erected or constructed; provided, that such
accessory uses shall not involve the conduct of any business, trade or industry, or any private
way or walk giving access to such activity, or any billboard, sign or poster other than authorized
herein.
Accessory uses may include the following:
A) Gardening, Pets and Animals. Gardening, hobby greenhouses, the raising of vegetables or
fruits and the keeping of household pets, domestic or farm animals exclusively for the use
or personal enjoyment of residents of the premises and not for commercial purposes with
the exception of produce grown and sold as part of a valid home occupation. Any heating
plant and any structure in which fowl, bees or farm animals are kept shall be located at
least 100 feet from every lot line.
B) Parking Facilities. Garages, carports or other parking spaces for the exclusive use of
residents of the premises.
C) Swimming Pools. Swimming pools, exclusively for the use of the residents and their
guests, and subject to the provisions of the Building Code.
D) Real Estate and Professional Signs. Real estate announcements and professional signs
subject to the provisions of Section 1171.15 and Chapter 1187 of the Codified
Ordinances.
E) Home Occupations and Professional Offices. See Section 1171.15.
F) Solar Units and Dish -type satellite Signal Receiving Stations. See Section 1171.7 F).
1171.7 ACCESSORY USES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. (Ord. 99 -132, passed October 11,
1999)
A) General. An accessory building may be erected detached from the principal building or
may be erected as an integral part of the principal building, or it may be connected
therewith by a breezeway or similar structure. No accessory building shall be erected in
any required court or yard. No accessory building shall be greater in size than 35% of the
gross floor area of the principal building, nor shall it occupy more than thirty -five percent
(35 %) of a required rear or side yard. No accessory building shall be greater than fifteen
(15) feet in height in residential districts, R -1 through R -7, or twenty (20) feet in height in
business districts, B -1 through B -3. Accessory uses in B -4, HT -1, I -1 and I -2 shall
comply with current height restrictions for each zone. (Ord. 99 -132, passed October 11,
1999)
B) Corner Lots. In any district, where a corner lot adjoins in the rear a lot fronting on the
side street, no part of an accessory building on such comer lot within twenty -five feet of
the common lot line shall be nearer a side street lot line than the least depth of the front
yard required along such side street for a dwelling or building on such adjoining lot, and
in no case shall any part of such accessory building be nearer to the side street lot line
than the least width of the side yard required for the principal building to which it is'
accessory. (Ord. 99 -132, passed October 11, 1999)
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
C) Without Main Building. No accessory building or structure shall be erected or
constructed prior to the erection or construction of the principal or main building. (Ord.
99 -132, passed October 11, 1999)
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
WORTHINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE
1149.08 SPECIAL YARD REQUIREMENTS.
(a) At comer lots, no accessory uses, accessory structures, structures, material or equipment
storage shall be located in any required front yard. Side yards fronting on the adjacent
street can be reduced to two- thirds of the required front setback from the right of way of
the adjacent street.
(Ord. 51 -71. Passed 12- 13 -71.)
(b) No accessory buildings shall be located in any front or side yard except under unusual
circumstances where such building shall not conflict with the intent and purposes of this
Zoning Ordinance, or, where enforcement shall result in extreme hardship. In either case
the decision to permit such activity shall be made by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Accessory buildings such as garages and storage buildings exceeding 120
square feet in area may be located in the rear yard provided such buildings are set back at
least eight feet from the side lot lines and ten feet from the rear lot
line. Accessory buildings of 120 square feet or less in area must be set back at least five
feet from the side and rear lot lines. In any "R" District the total area
for accessory buildings shall be limited to 850 square feet and must be compatible in
materials and appearance to the other buildings in the area.
(c) No accessory uses or structures, off-street parking facilities, except for single family, or
material or equipment storage shall be located in any required front yard, except as
otherwise provided herein. On High Street northward from the Worthington - Galena
Road parking facilities, which are incidental to the primary use of the property involved,
but not including structures, may be located within fifty feet of the right of way.
(d) All yard areas not used for access, parking, circulation, buildings and services shall be
landscaped and maintained.
10 -021 ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures
DELAWARE ZONING ORDINANCE
1156.02 ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE - FAMILY AND TWO -
FAMILY LOTS.
Accessory uses, buildings and structures permitted on single - family and two- family lots shall
conform to the location, coverage and maintenance standards contained in this Section.
(a) Minimum Yard Requirements. An accessory building or use permitted on a single -
family or two- family lot shall be located as set forth in Schedule 1156.02(a), provided that an
accessory use shall only be permitted to the extent such use complies with all other accessory
use regulations set forth in this Section 1156.02
Schedule 1156.02(a). MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES
Maximum Area
Setback From Specified Lot Line
Use
Yard in which use is permitted
Front
Side
Rear
(1) Fences, walls
Front, Comer Front, Side, Rear
None
None
None
(2) Attached accessory
None
(a)
(a)
(a)
structures
(3) Detached accessory
Side, Rear
N/A
! 3 ft
3 ft.
structures (b)(c)
(4) Driveways
Front, Comer Front, Side, Rear
N/A
2 ft.
2 ft.
(4) Supplemental paved
0 feet from
area for parking or
outdoor storage of
Front, Side, Rear
building set- back
3 ft.
3 ft.
vehicles
line (d)
(5) Swimming pools
Rear
I N/A
10 ft.
1 10 ft.
Shall comply with the setback requirements for principal buildings set forth in Schedule 1134.05, except for
utility boxes for underground utilities, residential air condensing units, and applies to any deck or a structure with
a roof and/or walls with a height greater than 18 inches, including any handrails, guardrails, or other structures
associated with the deck.
Except for utility boxes for underground utilities and residential air condensing units. Decks greater than 18
inches in height, including any handrails, guardrails, or other structures associated with the deck, shall be subject
to the principal structure setback requirements of the district.
Shall com 1 with the comer front yard requirements set forth in Section 1134.04
Only permitted in front yard when added to the driveway away from the front of the house and toward the
nearest side lot line.
(b) Maximum Area of Accessory Buildings and Structures
Schedule 1156.02(b). MAXIMUM AREA OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
Maximum Area
(1) Maximum area of detached accessory buildings
25% of required rear yard or 720 sq. ft., whichever
is g reater
(2) Maximum rear yard coverage of all accessory
buildings and structures, including pavement for patios
and/or pools and decks.
ER-1
20%
ER -2
30%
R -1
40%
R -2
-
50%
R -3
60%
R-4
60%
(a) On a lot greater than 1 acre, larger accessory buildings may be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals
pursuant to 1128.09, provided that accessory buildings in total area shall not exceed 3 % of the rear yard area of
the property or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less.
10- 021ADM
Administrative Request
Zoning Code Modification
Accessory Uses and Structures