Status: Closed — this petition is no longer accepting signatures.
Final supporters
We, the undersigned residents of Worthington, petition and demand that the City of Worthington Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) reject the variance request for an accessory structure area under BZA Case 45-14 as submitted by the new owners of 410 Tucker Drive (the “New Owners”). We have reviewed or are generally aware of the BZA Application submitted by the New Owners, including the drawings of the 2-story, 2600 square foot structure and the New Owners alleged justifications for the substantial variance needed to construct this structure. The Worthington Zoning Code provides that a variance should be issued only when a practical difficulty is shown by the person requesting the variance. There is nothing in the application for this variance that meets the minimum requirements needed for the granting of the variance. Simply put, this variance request should be rejected for numerous reasons including but not limited to the following:
- Medick Estates Neighborhood: The essential character of the Medick Estates neighborhood will be substantially altered and will suffer substantial detriment. The Medick Estates neighborhood is incredibly and uniquely scenic, particularly given its proximity to downtown Columbus. There are almost no accessory structures currently in Medick Estates. Approving this variance will not only damage the Medick Estates properties bordering 410 Tucker but it will also set the precedent that any home in Medick Estates may have multiple large dwellings and accessory structures on a single lot; therefore greatly damaging its incredible and unique scenery for the future.
- Highgate Avenue Properties: The essential character of the bordering Highgate Avenue properties will be substantially altered and will suffer substantial detriment. For example, having an accessory structure near the rear of the 399 and 411 Highgate Avenue properties will reduce their existing property values for a variety of reasons (e.g. loss of aesthetic view, loss of privacy, increase in noise, water drainage issues).
- New Owners’ Ignorance: The New Owners purchased the property and were aware of (or should have been aware of) the zoning restrictions, given that the New Owners purchased the property with the intent to build a new home in such a mature and established neighborhood. The New Owners’ failure to investigate and/or their decision to ignore the zoning restrictions supports rejecting their request. Denying the requested variance will not negatively impact the ability of the New Owners to recognize a reasonable value to the property.
- Spirit and Intent of Zoning Laws: The spirit and intent behind the zoning code will be observed and substantial justice will be done by rejecting the variance. The spirit and intent of the zoning code is designed to protect the community against substantial and unilateral changes to the standards the community has agreed to when it adopted the Zoning Code The variance procedures provided in the Zoning Code are designed to give the BZA and the City the flexibility to address unavoidable impacts from the application of the Zoning Code that disproportionately burden the use of a particular property. The variance provisions of the Zoning Code are not designed to provide a legal vehicle for approving ad hoc or indiscriminate departures from the zoning code without any articulable and reasonable practical difficulty caused by the application of the code to a property. Approving the requested variance in this case will undermine the ability of the City and the BZA to ever deny a variance for any size accessory use structure to the substantial future detriment of the entire Worthington Community.
More like this
PETITION TO DENY ZONING VARIANCE ON DIALS MILL ROAD TO WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
PETITION AGAINST THE ZONING VARIANCE - MELROSE AVE
Updates
October 29, 2015
The feedback from neighbors has been consistent in confirming that this proposed structure is at odds with the established character of our local community. I am currently preparing our formal presentation for the Board of Zoning Appeals to ensure every detail of our collective objection is clearly articulated. Your participation provides the depth of perspective necessary to show why this variance request is inconsistent with the clear intent of our zoning code.
October 29, 2015
Reaching this level of community backing confirms that our neighbors truly value the character of Medick Estates. It is clear that we are united in the belief that our zoning regulations exist to protect the integrity of our surroundings. I am encouraged by this steady momentum as we prepare to present these concerns to the board.
Reached 100 supporters
October 29, 2015
69 Comments
According to the minutes of the ARB/MPC meeting on June 11, 2015, the new owner assured neighbors and the Board that "he did not plan to cut down the vegetation between the properties, the trees will stay."
I live at at 279 Highgate and one of the reasons we bought our home was the beautiful backyard view. I am so perplexed and saddened why someone would want to move into our old established community, only to level beautiful trees. There aren't many neighborhoods like ours left in Columbus--people move and STAY here for the character of the homes and mature trees.
Chopping down more than 40 healthy mature trees has irreparably harmed the area. I ask that the BZA reject the variance request. Thank you.
I live on highgate and grew up on Tucker. I truly believe that what makes these two streets are the esthetic beauty of unique homes and properties. If someone wants to build a large sprawling estate, there are other places in Columbus that would fit that vision. People move to worthington for its established neighborhoods and landscape.
I live at 356 Highgate. From what I can tell there is nothing in the application for this variance that supports a finding of a practical difficulty and I would therefor ask the BZA to deny the request.
The distruction of the property at 410 Tucker Dr. has caused a great deal of consternation in our neighborhood. The complete disreguard for neighbors, the neighborhood, nature, natural habitat, or wildlife is beyond anyones comprehension. It has completely changed the patterns of our local wildlife. New Albany would have been a much better choice for the new owners. The trees have already been cut down and the land is flat. Big homes cannot replace big trees.
I am against allowing this variance. The city has limits on the number and size of structures allowed in the city FOR A REASON!!! That reason being to maintain the current character/landscape/mature trees, etc settings that exist. Allowing a relative "McMansion" and out-buildings, i.e. poolhouses, etc, to support the mansion, sets a dangerous precedent and will forever alter the beautiful Medick Estates neighborhood as we know it. The proposed plan calls for essentially putting the equivalent of another home, the 2700 sqft poolhouse, on the lot. Since when is putting two houses on the same lot in keeping with the character? Medick will just be the beginning if this is allowed.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Status: Closed — this petition is no longer accepting signatures.
Final supporters
We, the undersigned residents of Worthington, petition and demand that the City of Worthington Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) reject the variance request for an accessory structure area under BZA Case 45-14 as submitted by the new owners of 410 Tucker Drive (the “New Owners”). We have reviewed or are generally aware of the BZA Application submitted by the New Owners, including the drawings of the 2-story, 2600 square foot structure and the New Owners alleged justifications for the substantial variance needed to construct this structure. The Worthington Zoning Code provides that a variance should be issued only when a practical difficulty is shown by the person requesting the variance. There is nothing in the application for this variance that meets the minimum requirements needed for the granting of the variance. Simply put, this variance request should be rejected for numerous reasons including but not limited to the following:
- Medick Estates Neighborhood: The essential character of the Medick Estates neighborhood will be substantially altered and will suffer substantial detriment. The Medick Estates neighborhood is incredibly and uniquely scenic, particularly given its proximity to downtown Columbus. There are almost no accessory structures currently in Medick Estates. Approving this variance will not only damage the Medick Estates properties bordering 410 Tucker but it will also set the precedent that any home in Medick Estates may have multiple large dwellings and accessory structures on a single lot; therefore greatly damaging its incredible and unique scenery for the future.
- Highgate Avenue Properties: The essential character of the bordering Highgate Avenue properties will be substantially altered and will suffer substantial detriment. For example, having an accessory structure near the rear of the 399 and 411 Highgate Avenue properties will reduce their existing property values for a variety of reasons (e.g. loss of aesthetic view, loss of privacy, increase in noise, water drainage issues).
- New Owners’ Ignorance: The New Owners purchased the property and were aware of (or should have been aware of) the zoning restrictions, given that the New Owners purchased the property with the intent to build a new home in such a mature and established neighborhood. The New Owners’ failure to investigate and/or their decision to ignore the zoning restrictions supports rejecting their request. Denying the requested variance will not negatively impact the ability of the New Owners to recognize a reasonable value to the property.
- Spirit and Intent of Zoning Laws: The spirit and intent behind the zoning code will be observed and substantial justice will be done by rejecting the variance. The spirit and intent of the zoning code is designed to protect the community against substantial and unilateral changes to the standards the community has agreed to when it adopted the Zoning Code The variance procedures provided in the Zoning Code are designed to give the BZA and the City the flexibility to address unavoidable impacts from the application of the Zoning Code that disproportionately burden the use of a particular property. The variance provisions of the Zoning Code are not designed to provide a legal vehicle for approving ad hoc or indiscriminate departures from the zoning code without any articulable and reasonable practical difficulty caused by the application of the code to a property. Approving the requested variance in this case will undermine the ability of the City and the BZA to ever deny a variance for any size accessory use structure to the substantial future detriment of the entire Worthington Community.
Updates
October 29, 2015
The feedback from neighbors has been consistent in confirming that this proposed structure is at odds with the established character of our local community. I am currently preparing our formal presentation for the Board of Zoning Appeals to ensure every detail of our collective objection is clearly articulated. Your participation provides the depth of perspective necessary to show why this variance request is inconsistent with the clear intent of our zoning code.
October 29, 2015
Reaching this level of community backing confirms that our neighbors truly value the character of Medick Estates. It is clear that we are united in the belief that our zoning regulations exist to protect the integrity of our surroundings. I am encouraged by this steady momentum as we prepare to present these concerns to the board.
Reached 100 supporters
October 29, 2015
69 Comments
If approved, the variance requested for 410 Tucker Drive would substantially diminish the essential character of the Medick Estates neighborhood, which its residents have worked so hard to preserve. Therefore, the variance application should be denied.
According to the minutes of the ARB/MPC meeting on June 11, 2015, the new owner assured neighbors and the Board that "he did not plan to cut down the vegetation between the properties, the trees will stay."
I live at at 279 Highgate and one of the reasons we bought our home was the beautiful backyard view. I am so perplexed and saddened why someone would want to move into our old established community, only to level beautiful trees. There aren't many neighborhoods like ours left in Columbus--people move and STAY here for the character of the homes and mature trees.
Chopping down more than 40 healthy mature trees has irreparably harmed the area. I ask that the BZA reject the variance request. Thank you.
I live on highgate and grew up on Tucker. I truly believe that what makes these two streets are the esthetic beauty of unique homes and properties. If someone wants to build a large sprawling estate, there are other places in Columbus that would fit that vision. People move to worthington for its established neighborhoods and landscape.
I live at 356 Highgate. From what I can tell there is nothing in the application for this variance that supports a finding of a practical difficulty and I would therefor ask the BZA to deny the request.
The distruction of the property at 410 Tucker Dr. has caused a great deal of consternation in our neighborhood. The complete disreguard for neighbors, the neighborhood, nature, natural habitat, or wildlife is beyond anyones comprehension. It has completely changed the patterns of our local wildlife. New Albany would have been a much better choice for the new owners. The trees have already been cut down and the land is flat. Big homes cannot replace big trees.
I am against allowing this variance. The city has limits on the number and size of structures allowed in the city FOR A REASON!!! That reason being to maintain the current character/landscape/mature trees, etc settings that exist. Allowing a relative "McMansion" and out-buildings, i.e. poolhouses, etc, to support the mansion, sets a dangerous precedent and will forever alter the beautiful Medick Estates neighborhood as we know it. The proposed plan calls for essentially putting the equivalent of another home, the 2700 sqft poolhouse, on the lot. Since when is putting two houses on the same lot in keeping with the character? Medick will just be the beginning if this is allowed.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
If approved, the variance requested for 410 Tucker Drive would substantially diminish the essential character of the Medick Estates neighborhood, which its residents have worked so hard to preserve. Therefore, the variance application should be denied.