Posted: 6/18/03

Columbus will look at ordinance

Joe Drennan
Staff Writer

The books of Columbus Township look like they are about to be rewritten.

There is not going to be a radical change in the town ordinances, just in the definition of what is the front yard for houses that sit on corner lots.

On April 18, Dennis Burns applied for a building permit. Burns wanted to build an accessory building in his yard.

Since Burns lives on a corner lot, Columbus Townshipís building ordinances consider both the area of lawn in front of his house and that on the side of his house a front yard since there is a road on each side.

In his quest to get his accessory building request approved, Burns was confronted with screening the building 80 percent with trees which were already there or to build the structure in a completely different location in the yard so that it complied with township ordinances.

The proposed site that would abide ordinances would require the removal of several mature trees, and would have obstructed the view from the home of Burnes and his neighbors.

ìMaybe we should look at the definition of a front yard,î Supervisor Renae Fry said at the boardís regular meeting, Wednesday, June 11.

ìThe applicant (Burns) has three options; place the building where it meets code, apply for an amendment of the definition of a front yard, or the board can initiate the amendment on its own,î Town Attorney Bill Griffith said.

After some discussion between board members last week, they agreed to reject Burnsí request for now, but to go back and look at the definition of what a front yard should be for corner lots.

The board suggesting that it should only be the area of yard in front of the house, not that on the side too.

ìWe have to go through the code to see the effects,î Griffith said. ìWe can limit it to accessory buildings only to prevent further confusion.î

It is estimated that amending the current code will take six to eight weeks.

Burns comments

ìI am pleased that they reconsidered the ordinance because I felt it was unfair to property owners on corner lots,î Burns said in an interview following the meeting.

Burns said he felt the intent of the code was not to hide the building with trees, but to prevent people from building accessory buildings in front of their homes.

ìIím really pleased because I thought they were going to draw a hard line on it, but they reconsidered,î Burns said.

ìUltimately common sense prevailed.î

Top of Page