Zoning board approves Bowling Green homeowner’s request to widen driveway

The Bowling Green Zoning Board of Appeals voted March 11 to grant a variance allowing resident Greg Fritz to widen his driveway by 8 feet, bringing the total width to about 24 feet and exceeding the local limit by 4 feet.

Greg Fritz told the board he and his family — “I have 2 children, with the third one on the way,” he said — need more on‑site parking and that a wider driveway would reduce the need for on‑street parking and provide a safer place for children to play. The board’s senior planner (Chase) had described the request as an 8‑by‑33‑foot driveway extension and noted the application complied with notice requirements; the planner also said the proposal would leave roughly 9 feet between the widened driveway and the adjoining property line.

The zoning code provision cited by staff (Section 150.72) restricts driveway width for one‑ or two‑unit dwellings to either 20 feet or the width of the garage it serves, whichever is greater. The planner told the board the existing driveway is about 16 feet wide, and the proposed 8‑foot addition would bring it to about 24 feet.

Board members discussed neighborhood conditions and precedent. One committee member said, “To me, the 4 feet, it doesn't seem substantial,” and others noted several homes in the subdivision already have wider driveways and that the area houses many young families, which they said is likely to increase on‑street parking demand. A board member also pointed out the applicant’s 15‑foot side‑yard setback and that the proposed widening would not appear to unduly reduce turf or setback buffers.

A motion to approve the variance "as submitted" was moved by Jeff Crawford and seconded by Jay Sockman; the secretary called the roll and each member voted yes. The chair notified Fritz that he must follow up with the planning department to obtain required permits before beginning construction.

The decision is quasi‑judicial; the chair reminded those present that an adverse decision could be appealed to the Wood County Court of Common Pleas and that a court reporter was recording a verbatim transcript of the hearing.

Notes: the planner said no phone calls or letters were received in opposition, that required public notices were posted, and that a site notice and mailings to tax mailing addresses had been completed.