16 JANUARY 2001

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

  4. Members Present: Fred Borden, Robert Apke, Robert Weidlich,

    Councilman Robert Wilson, Councilman James

    Squires, David Okum and Jane Huber

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor


  6. Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ė December 12, 2000
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė December 10, 2000
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė December 24, 2000
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė Index 2000
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė James Squires Ė no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

Mr. Okum reported that approval of the final PUD Cassinelli Square redevelopment of Building D (Cinema Building) was discussed and with conditions, the approval was unanimous. Approval of the final development plan for Springdale Plaza was next Ė it is a great improvement and after much discussion approval was granted unanimously.

There also was a concept discussion for a proposed medical office building next to The Sterling House. It is an odd shaped parcel and the developer had a very large building with a lot of parking, overdevelopment of the site, but it was only concept discussion.

Also tree replacement requirements in the Code were discussed. We will look at the redevelopment standards and also we will review the issue of banners and flags.

  3. A. Curt Joachimi, 511 West Kemper Road requests approval of a variance to allow the display of a sign advertising Radio Station 93.3 WAKW in his front yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.529 (continued 12/19/00)





    16 JANUARY 2001



    Mr. Okum reported that Mr. Joachimi was contacted and indicated that he would not be here because he had changed his sign so it was not an advertisement for the radio station. Mr. Okum said we do have this on the floor and need to act on it; there is not an official withdrawal, so we will have to vote it down.

    Mr. Wilson said before we vote we should listen to Mr. Lohbeck and what has happened. The applicant has painted over the 93.3. Mr. Lohbeck showed a photograph of the painted over sign.

    Mr. Wilson said it appeared that the applicant left the last meeting with the idea that if 93.3 or any indication of the radio station was removed from the sign, he could keep it there, and that is what he did.

    Mr. Borden commented it appears that you still can make that out. Mr. Wilson responded I think he made an attempt to erase it, although if you are close enough, you can still see the letters. We may have some recourse in that we can state that the letters have to be removed so they are not noticed at all. That is a comment Ė not a motion.

    Mr. Okum said to make the record right, I will open the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

    Mr. Okum said religious expression is protected, and therefore is not prohibited. We have a variance request to leave the sign up, so we have to act on the sign that was in violation, and I would suggest a motion to deny.

    Mr. Squires moved to deny the request and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

    Mr. Borden asked Mr. Lohbeck if the sign as it is now is in violation, and Mr. Lohbeck answered that it was not.

    Mr. Wilson said letís look at that sign again. If 93.3 can be clearly read, he is still in violation, and looking at this picture, you can still see 93.3. Mr. Lohbeck reported that we looked at it when we took the picture and determined it was all right since you canít make it out as you are driving.

    Mr. Squires said by moving to deny the request, does he have to take that sign down? Mr. Lohbeck answered no. Mr. Okum added that this is an alternate sign, which does not require a variance. We would be voting against the original sign.

    Mr. Borden said if that fades during the weather and the numbers become visible again, it would be in violation again. Mr. Lohbeck confirmed this. Mr. Squires added for clarification, we are voting on the motion to deny his original request, and the sign that he now has is not affected by that motion.





    16 JANUARY 2001



    Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mr. Apke, Mr. Weidlich, Mrs. Huber and Chairman Okum. Motion to deny was approved unanimously.

    1. Jean Riley, 785 Tivoli Lane requests variance to allow an additional shed in her side yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492 "There shall be no more than 1 detached accessory buildingÖ"

Barbara Steffen, 5643 Boehm Drive, Fairfield, Jean Rileyís daughter, said we want to thank you for the opportunity for the variance request.

My mother has lived in Springdale 36 years, at 773 Tivoli Lane, and her sister purchased the house next door at 785 Tivoli Lane. She passed away two years ago and my mom inherited the house and all the personal property inside it. My brother and his son live in the house and pay the utilities, but my auntís personal property is still in the house. We got rid of all we could, donated to charity and gave away as much as we could, but what is left is in the house and the sheds. Then my brother and nephewís personal property also are in there, so there is not a lot of space. It is a one family house without a basement.

When my aunt purchased the house, the shed in question was already there. It was built by a previous owner and when we were going to build a shed on the property, we applied for a building permit. At that time my nephew called because he originally wanted to build a 12í x 16í shed and that was too big and he was told it had to be 10í x 12í. We didnít know it was a problem until they came out to inspect our 10í x 12í shed and saw the other shed on the property.

Due to all the personal property that my mom has and my aunt had and my brother and his son have, there is no place to put it. We would like to keep both sheds. It is not bothering anybody. The yard is very small and it is a irregularly shaped corner lot.

Mrs. Steffen said we have a letter from Mr. Jones who lives next door and said that the shed does not bother him. She gave copies of the letter to the board members, as part of the record..

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking if anyone would care to address the board. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Huber wondered if one of the sheds at 785 could be moved to Mrs. Rileyís property and Mrs. Steffen answered that she already has a shed on her property.

Mr. Weidlich wondered if it would be possible to consolidate and put everything in one shed.


16 JANUARY 2001


  2. Mrs. Steffen said we have consolidated and gotten rid of as much as we can. Those sheds as well as the closets in the house are completely full. We are at the point that we donít want to give anything else away, items that we may use at a later date.

    Mr. Squires said one of the things that will weigh heavily on us is the fact that our code calls for 120 s.f. maximum, and with the two sheds you are 86 s.f. over what the code will allow. We have to consider precedence as well. Itís not an easy decision.

    Mrs. Steffen responded I understand that. It would be a hardship to try to find some place to put all the property, between my auntís stuff and the personal property of the people living there now. Itís a small house that doesnít have a lot of storage space.

    Mr. Borden wondered about rental storage places and Mrs. Steffen answered that my momís is on a limited budget and her income doesnít allow her spending on something like that. Mr. Borden asked more about the hardship that would occur if they had to remove the extra shed. Mrs. Steffen answered it would be hard to find some place to put the property. It would cost to have the shed taken down and she lives from month to month on her income without a lot extra.

    Mr. Wilson said this is a particularly difficult situation. I saw the property and the privacy fence covers the small shed but the second shed is a good 5 or 6 feet taller, almost as tall as the residence.

    Mrs. Steffen said if my brother or nephew would move out, they would eventually take things with them and there would be space freed up then, but at this point there is no space.

    Mr. Wilson said this would be setting a big precedent and this is something we donít want to do. We want to work with you to look at other options. Perhaps other family members could take the property until the relatives move out and take their property. Maybe some relatives could assist your mother in paying for a storage area if that was the decision.

    Mr. Wilson said I assume the new shed cost $1,000 or so. Mrs. Riley answered my grandson and son built it, so it was just the cost of the materials.

    Mr. Wilson said I feel very uncomfortable about approving this. I recognize that these things have worth that you canít set a value on, so this is an emotional situation as well. Before we vote, I would ask if there were any other alternatives, other relatives that would take some of these pieces or relatives that would be willing to pay for storage.

    Mrs. Steffen answered there are other relatives, but I would ask that you please consider how long she has lived in Springdale. She has loved Springdale and I grew up here and went to Princeton. The taller shed was the shed we got the permit for and was approved.


    16 JANUARY 2001


  4. Mrs. Steffen added that it is her property, and she would like to keep it there. There are dishes and personal items that she uses, plus lawnmowers and items to maintain the property. She does get into it; it is not dead storage.

    Mr. Wilson said if we had gone out to your property and realized you already had one shed on the property and denied your request for the second shed, what would you have done? Mrs. Steffen answered it probably would have been to ask you if we could tear the other one down and build a bigger shed. Mr. Wilson asked if that would be an option now? Mrs. Steffen answered we would prefer not to, but if that is your decision, then that would be what we have to do.

    Dirk Steffen, husband of Barbara said her nephew had asked for a bigger shed at the time he was going to build that and the person at the desk said he couldnít build one that big. At the desk he mentioned that he was going to tear down the small one so we could combine everything into one bigger one, but then they said he couldnít make it that big, that he had to conform to a certain size. He mentioned that there was another shed, but they said donít worry about that now. Mrs. Steffen said I asked him if he got the name, and he didnít. So we were under the impression the whole time that it was okay to have two sheds.

    Mr. Borden wondered if they have a garage and if there is room in it. Mrs. Steffen answered it is not a full garage which evidently was turned into a family room, so there is no storage space at all. Mr. Steffen answered it is about five feet; they have one standup freezer and a workbench Ė thatís all that could fit in there.

    Mr. Borden said the new shed is pretty tall; is there a lot in there? Mrs. Steffen answered that there wasnít. Mr. Borden asked the condition of the older shed, and Mrs. Steffen said very good. They just painted it last year and put a new floor in it to make sure it was sturdy.

    Mr. Borden asked Mrs. Riley how often she went into the older shed, and Mrs. Steffen answered at least once a week, and usually more.

    Mr. Squires wondered if Shed E on this drawing could be modified to get 10-12 square feet more out of it? Mr. Steffen said if we added a loft, trying to move heavy equipment like lawnmowers and boxes full of dishes and pots and pans daily is not feasible.

    Mr. Okum said it appears that there is some confusion on the applicantís part as to if there could be one shed or two sheds in the code. This might be a short-term situation; the applicant has indicated that once their son moves out, there is a possibility that they wouldnít need as much storage. On the other hand, we have to be concerned about how we address the other 300 houses in Heritage Hill on the issue of multiple sheds.




    16 JANUARY 2001


  6. Mr. Okum said we have heard testimony from the applicant and it is definitely a situation that is very difficult to deal with. You could literally add a garage to the whole side of the house and be within code, but we have two sheds here and we have to take some type of action.

    Mr. Wilson wondered if there were anyway to modify that larger shed to accommodate a loft to put the lighter weight items and leave the lower level for the heavier materials. My gut feel is that is perhaps the only solution we have. If you were to modify the 10í x 11í shed to 10í x 12í and make it two levels and tear down the other shed,

    Mr. Steffen said everything is pretty heavy. In the new shed the floor is completely filled. Mr. Wilson wondered if it were all the way up to the roofline and Mr. Steffen answered that it wasnít but nobody could get up to a loft. There are quads and bikes and heavier offroad vehicles, cookers, pots, pans and lots more.

    Mr. Wilson said if we had noticed that there was another shed on the property and had denied the larger shed, you would have found some way to store those items that are in the larger shed. Mr. Steffen said the only other way would have been to move it, and there is no basement or garage. Mrs. Steffen added we didnít want to clutter up the house and make it a hazard.

    Mr. Squires said according to this drawing, Section B is a patio and Section D is also a patio. The new shed is built adjacent to Patio D. Mr. Steffen said it is on the same pad. Mr. Squires wondered if they could incorporate Patio D into that shed. Mr. Steffen responded her nephew wanted a larger shed to accommodate both of them but werenít allowed to do that.

    Mr. Squires said if this variance is allowed, it goes with the property, and that is part of the dilemma. Mr. Okum said unless we set a time limit.

    Mr. Steffen said as far as I know, there is no reason for her to sell and it will be passed on to the family that is living there.

    Mrs. Steffen asked if there would be a grandfather clause for the old shed. Mr. Steffen asked that it has been there 15 or 20 years. Mr. Okum said you are still limited to 120 s.f.

    Mr. Borden said with the new shed, can you incorporate space saver shelves in there to get some of that off the floor? Mrs. Steffen answered shelves can be put in there, but both sheds are packed and there is no way to get in and out easily without pulling a lot of items out. Mr. Steffen said thatís lifting heavy stuff; quads, ATVís, 575 pounds apiece. Mr. Borden said I was thinking about the older shed.






    16 JANUARY 2001


  8. Mr. Steffen said in that shed are lawnmower, and other heavy items. Mrs. Steffen said there are some lighter weight items that could be put up, but there are so many other things that arenĎt lightweight that are in there that it isnít big enough to accommodate them all.

    Addressing Mrs. Riley, Mr. Squires asked if she saw any way out of this within two or three years when you might not have to have two sheds.

    Mrs. Riley answered there is a possibility. There are three familyís personal items, and if one family moves, they will take their items with them. My grandson will probably move out, but when I donít know. Mr. Squires said if you can see yourself clear within two or three years that might help us a little bit. Mrs. Riley said I would think in a year and a half to two y ears he would be moved. Mrs. Steffen asked if it we could say three years.

    Mr. Apke said you have a patio between the two sheds and have four runners in there. What about making an awning off the new shed, covering over the patio and putting the four wheelers on the patio and under the awning. Mrs. Steffen said theft. It has been on the news quite a bit, where thieves are targeting households for that. Mr. Steffen added that was one of the main reasons for the new shed was to lock them up.

    Mr. Apke said I visited the property and with that privacy fence, it would be pretty hard to get in your yard and out with one of these things without somebody noticing. Mr. Steffen said they are not home all day. Mrs. Steffen said I work for an insurance company and these are very high theft items.

    Mr. Apke suggested moving some of the other items out to the patio, some of the lawn equipment. Mrs. Steffen answered we could, but it would junk up the yard. There are kids and we donít want them to fall and get hurt; we donít want to get sued either. Mr. Steffen added that all these things are subject to weathering.

    Mr. Okum said I believe there is some willingness by one member of the board to give some time latitude. The shed is 10í x 11í now; it was suggested that it be increased to maybe 10í x 13í. The other option is to force the removal of one of the two sheds. Not every house in that district has the opportunity that this property does.

    That house would accommodate another garage alongside the house, which would certainly encompass all the storage that you need. We have a difficult situation here, but we need to make a decision. Mrs. Riley said if I had known I was breaking the law, I would never have had that shed built. Mr. Okum said I think the board understands that, and that is why one of the members recommended a time frame. I would hate to see a three-year time limit; two years is not too much, and would fall within the present membersí terms on this board.




    16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Wilson said I am reluctant to go with a time frame, because your family members may move out tomorrow or may not move out at all. Bear in mind if we deny your request, it would be six months before you could come back, meaning you would have to tear the shed down. An option might be for you to take a closer look at the new shed and see what modifications you could make. In other words, table this until next month. Mr. Squires may make a motion to give you a time frame, and that may pass, I donít know.

Mr. Wilson said if we gave you three years and they didnít move out, you would be in violation. Mrs. Steffen responded if you would give us three years, we would definitely go by whatever you said. Mr. Wilson said I donít feel comfortable with giving you a time frame, because that puts the burden on you to kick your relatives out after a certain time.

Mr. Okum said if there is going to be a motion from the floor, I would like to see the applicant request to go to table before the motion is even made. Mrs. Steffen said I would prefer not to go

through this again. Iíd like to settle it one way or another.

Mr. Okum asked if they were in total opposition to expanding the shed from 10í x 11í to 10í x 13í? Mr. Steffen said that would be an additional cost. Mrs. Steffen added I would prefer not to, but if that is your only decision, we would have to take it to my nephew and have him look at the parameters.

Mr. Okum said I am hearing three possibilities. One is a motion to deny and the other is to allow you an addition to your existing conforming shed and the removal of the second shed. The third option would be to give you grace on the two sheds for a period of time. Of those three options, what would be your preference?

Mr. Steffen answered in any case, we would need some time. Mr. Okum said then it would be better for you to request us to table and come back next month and resolve it once and for all.

Mrs. Steffen said we would prefer a variances for some additional years if we could

Mr. Squires said after hearing all this and considering the exceptional circumstances surrounding this, I move that we grant the variance for a period not to exceed two years. At that time, we would expect the second shed to be removed. Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. Huber, Mr. Borden, Mr. Apke, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Okum. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.








16 JANUARY 2001


    1. Anthony C. Potts, 11771 Van Camp Lane requests variance to allow the construction of a patio enclosure 19í-3" from his rear lot line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.087(A) "Single household dwellings..shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet."
    2. Mr. Steve Bell with Patio Enclosures said I am representing Mr. & Mrs. Potts. We are requesting a variance to enclose the back deck area as a sunroom. The property is pie shaped and doesnít allow a lot of space in the back. We are going 14í-8" beyond the existing house wall toward the back property line. We have reviewed this, and there really isnít another location that this enclosure could be placed on the home. This is the most logical place for it. It has the patio doors leading out to the back area. There are many enclosures in the neighborhood, so there are a lot of these type structures there, and many of them are very close to the property lines. There are also a lot of awnings, patios and decks in the area.

      The structure we would be placing would be very similar to this photo. They do have a two-story home, but it is a very attractive enclosure. It is mostly glass with some aluminum extrusions that would be color matched to the sidling as best as possible. It will have the same style roof as in the photo. The neighbor to the left of the property has somewhat of an addition on the back of their home that is approximately the same distance, visually.

      This is an investment that they are making into their home, and it is increasing the value of the home as well as dressing up the neighborhood.

      Mr. Okum stated that notice had been sent to all property owners within 200 feet of this property. He opened the public hearing, asking if anyone present cared to address the board. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

      Mr. Squires said we need for you to clarify exactly what the rear yard setback would be. Is it 19í-3" or 15í-5"? Mr. Bell answered it will be 19í-3" to the back wall of the new enclosure.

      Mr. Squires asked about the existing deck, and Mr. Bell indicated that they would look at the footings to make sure there is the proper support there before we would put the enclosure on.

      Mr. Squires stated that there are two residents that live in close proximity to this that have voiced concern to me. They say okay, but absolutely no closer than what you show. Mr. Bell said the deck is already there and we wouldnít go any further than where the deck is.

      Mr. Squires asked if it would be brick or aluminum siding. Mr. Bell answered that it is aluminum and glass, mostly glass, but the actual framing members are aluminum. Mr. Wilson wondered if the siding would be the same as what is on the house; will it be a separate color and look like an extension. Mr. Bell answered that it would be a separate color, but there really isnít any siding. The extrusions are very narrow; the only solid area is the wing panel, about 12 inches which tapers down to almost nothing. It is impossible to match siding, but it is a cream color and will blend very nice.


      16 JANUARY 2001

      PAGE TEN


      Mr. Wilson asked about the roof construction, and Mr. Bell answered that it would be the same, aluminum with the cream color. Mr. Okum asked if the enclosure would be heated, and Mr. Bell answered that it would not be, it is a seasonal space only.

      Mr. Borden asked if there would be any overhang on the enclosure, and Mr. Bell answered that it would be approximately 12 inches.

      Addressing Mr. Potts, Mr. Squires wondered if the basement could be made into a recreational area. Mr. Potts answered that it is partially finished, and we have had some water issues in the past, so I am a little uncomfortable using it. Also, I prefer the ambiance of the glass room. Itís a little easier for the family get togethers.

      Mr. Bell added there is no way you could get the same feel in a finished basement that you have in a sunroom with all the glass and the open feeling.

      Mr. Borden asked if the lighting in the sunroom would interfere with his neighbors in terms of glare. Mr. Potts responded he didnít anticipate that it would. We probably would do ceiling fans with built in lighting with dimmer switches on it. Itís not something that we would use a lot at night. Mr. Bell added if that were to become an issue, vertical blinds could solve it.

      Mr. Squires said I was going to ask if you would be putting vertical blinds there, adding that the reason he was asking is because those lots are very close. The Shafers live behind you and you can sit in their kitchenette and it almost looks like they would be looking directly into your sunroom. For your privacy, I would imagine you would want some blinds. Will you specify that? Mr. Potts answered we didnít do that initially because of the additional cost involved, but we are thinking about it a year or so down the road. Mr. Squires added if you use these at night, you could affect people sitting out on their patios. Do you intend to do a lot of entertaining? Mr. Potts answered not a lot, mainly family get togethers. Mr. Okum commented if Mr. Potts were entertaining on an open deck, it would be the same type situation.

      Mr. Okum said because of its proximity to the property line, if you would add halogen high intensity light to the corner for safety and security that would be an overuse of lighting and would affect the neighbors. I think we would want something conditional on your variance is granted that high intensity lighting on the outside shall be prohibited. Mr. Potts answered that it sounded reasonable.

      Mr. Borden moved to approve the variance for a setback of no less than 19í-3", with the condition that high intensity lighting would be prohibited on the outside of the addition. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Borden, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Huber, Mr. Apke, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Okum. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.







      16 JANUARY 2001


      The Board of Zoning Appeals recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

    3. Harry Arcaro, Owner of 639 Cloverdale Avenue requests a variance to allow the construction of a 1,300 s.f. home. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(A) "The minimum area for single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f."

Mr. Arcaro said I have been building 1300 s.f. homes on Smiley and Observatory for the last couple of years. I purchased these three lots in the last couple of months, and I found out that they require 2,000 s.f., which I wasnít aware of. This is an older neighborhood, and a 2,000 s.f. house would run $160,000. I donít think I could get that kind of money out of a home in this older area.

Mr. Okum said I understand you are here on three issues, and we will consider each one individually. This is in reference to 639 Cloverdale.

Milford Allen with Remax said I want to share with you the property values in this area are. As you know, you canít overimprove or put too much money in a house because a home only sells for what the marketplace will bring. Mr. Arcaro has built several 1300 s.f. homes in this area and they have sold. The $160,000 homes in that particular area would not support that price.

Mr. Allen showed a home that was on the market for $179,000 (lowered price) Roberta Schlusser with Sibcy Cline tried to sell it; she is a very reputable realtor and couldnít sell it.

The homes in the area range from as little as 746 s.f. all the way up to 1800 s.f., but most of the homes are in the 1100 to 1300 range. A home this size would complement the area, where if you put a large home in, it would make people feel closed in and uncomfortable. There is a thing called functional obsolescence, and when people buy a home, they want to feel comfortable in their surrounding and in their home. If the comps wonít support it, it doesnít make sense to build that size of a home.

Mr. Allen presented the listing of comparable prices in the area to the board members. It contained everything that sold in the last 24 months in this area and how much it sold for. The most a home sold for in that area was $135,000.

Mr. Okum said let the record show that the first document presented is a number of comparatives taken from the Hamilton County Auditorís Office. The second document is real estate listings from the Multiple Listing Service. There also is a single sheet showing a house at 476 Dimmick Road that was listed for one figure, lowered to the other and still has not sold.

Mr. Arcaro said if I could build a bigger house and thought I could sell it, I definitely would do it, but IL have built there before and those homes sold for $119,000. The buyers are generally first time buyers or people coming from bigger homes into a smaller one. The price range is right, but if you get up into $150-160,000 home, it wouldnít be feasible to build it.


16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Okum asked how long his homes had been on the market, and Mr. Arcaro answered that they would be sold before he started building them, because the area is well liked.

Mr. Larry Shad, the surveyor who prepared the site plans said I have been surveying for 44 years. I ran a few numbers on some of the lots in this old subdivision, which was developed in 1928. Most of the houses were built before 1960 or 1965. Those houses go from 800-900 s.f. to 1300 to 1400 s.f. All of those lots are 50 x 125 feet, and if we put on a 2,000 s.f. ranch with a two-car garage and two extra parking spaces, we would be taking up the whole lot. Mr. Arcaro has lots a little larger than that, so he could go with a little larger house. I think the 2,000 s.f. house is a pretty big size for that subdivision, and a ranch type house would be very difficult to fit in.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking if anyone present wished to address the board. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Squires said I am looking at 639 Cloverdale. That is the big lot at the corner of Cloverdale and Harmony. That lot is 125í x 100í, and you intend to build a bi-level home with two-car garage. Mr. Squires commented over a period of time those lots might be worth more than the homes on them. Mr. Lohbeck reported that they researched the auditorís page, and there were houses built in the 1950ís and 1960ís which range from 900 to 1500 square feet and were selling for around $140,000. Mr. Squires commented it is conceivable that eventually a buyer would buy the lots and tear down the existing structure and build his own.

Mr. Weidlich wondered if this were the same house that Mr. Arcaro built at 505 Observatory. Mr. Arcaro indicated that it was, and Mr. Weidlich added that was a 60-foot lot and that house fit pretty well. This lot is much larger. You said that you had a full bath on the lower level; this only shows a half bath. Mr. Arcaro answered that there would be a shower stall in there.

Mr. Okum said I checked the auditorís record as well, and we do have some variances in square footages. Down the street from you we have 1779 s.f. we have a home next to this site that is 1586 s.f. and along Harmony there is a house listed as 1532 s.f. This is an awfully large lot to put such a small home on. I canít see why a larger home could not go on that site.

Mr. Arcaro responded there is no doubt that a larger home could go on that site, but if you go around the corner with the fellow that cuts trees down or whatever he does, and you put $150 -$160,000 home there, no one would buy it and look across the street and see this kind of stuff. Mr. Okum responded I canít disagree, but neighborhoods do change, and people build on properties not only for investment purposes but also for a home. There are a number of homes that have been built in that neighborhood that are much larger homes. Mr. Arcaro answered an individual might build his own home and think nothing of it, but as a builder, I have to consider selling the home, and this creates a problem.


16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Okum said the situation is what drives the request for the variance. Mr. Arcaro answered the price range I have to go into. I donít want to go up into the higher price range, and this bi-level moves good; there is no problem selling it. The one on the corner lot is set 35í back one way and 35í back the other, so that takes up quite a bit of the lot.

Mr. Okum said I understand your comments but being in the building industry, I also understand that you have indicated that a lot of the people who are purchasing your homes are older people where their families have moved out. Mr. Arcaro added we also have the first time buyers who donít buy $150-$160,000 homes. Mr. Okum responded I am referring to accessibility. You indicate you have a high market of older people, and a bi-level home is not an accessible home. Mr. Arcaro responded they buy them; I havenít had any problem.

Mr. Wilson said you are looking at a 2,000 s.f. house and you are saying $160,000. I live on Glensprings, and most of the two story houses there are over 2,000 s.f. I also am the district councilman for Beacon and Oxford Hills, and most of them are 2,000 s.f. ranches. I think $160,000 is a high price. Being in the insurance business, I know if a house is damaged in a fire and has to be appraised, and if there are no houses in the immediate area that are comparable, they move out and expand the area. New houses tend to sell at a higher price than older homes. When your appraiser said that houses in the immediate area wouldnít sell, I donít buy that. If a person likes the house and likes the neighborhood, they will pay the price.

I have a concern about smaller houses on big lots because after a period of time, people want to expand and put patios, etc. I donít feel comfortable with a 1300 s.f. house on this particular lot. I feel that a larger home comparably priced would sell, and I donít think they are overly concerned about the neighborhood; neighborhoods change, and you canít use the analogy that because prior houses are not that size, newer houses should be.

Mr. Arcaro stated I have been building for almost 50 years and I havenít been wrong on areas to build in terms of areas to build in and price ranges. I am definitely not wrong in this particular area. It is like the other lots near Rose. I bought two lots there, and the house on the corner has an eight foot back yard and a little white frame house. There is no way you could tell me you could put a 2,000 s.f. house next to that.

Mr. Squires said you could build an 1800 s.f. house there for less than $150,000 couldnít you? Mr. Arcaro answered the best I will go in there would be a 1500 s.f. house on the three lots I have. That means I have to change the plan, which probably would be a ranch.

Mr. Squires said Iím going to take slight issue with you Mr. Arcaro. You know far more about your business than I do, but this is Springdale, and I feel very proud to be a citizen of this community. I am going to agree with Bob Wilson; if people like that, they are going to pay for it. This is Springdale and we are growing.


16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Arcaro said I donít doubt that; the area is great and in the newer section, I can see that. Mr. Squires said as time goes on, that section will change. Those homes will be sold and I feel that the buyers will tear down what is there and build new homes. Mr. Arcaro said most of the lots in this area are 50 footers, and they wonít let you build on 50 footers. If there is one lot with a house next to it, you are allowed to build on a 50-footer.

Mr. Okum said so you are asking for a variance on a lot 100í x 125í to put a house on that corner. I canít support that; I canít find any conditions for a hardship. I can see a way to accomplish what the Zoning Code calls for on that lot without any difficulty. Maybe your reasons for a variance needs more clarification, because it says "What exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or conditions apply to this property in question that differ from other properties in the zoning district which make this variance request necessary?" You are saying "Old subdivision with existing lots of 50 feet Ė houses of 1930-1940 era" does not truly answer that. Did you want to add anything to that?

Mr. Shad said most of the houses were built in the 1960ís era on these 50-foot lots. There may have been houses built then, but they are still 50-foot lots. Mr. Okum said this lot is 100 x125í. "Does strict compliance with the zoning code present an undue hardship or practical difficulty as it relates to the use and/or development of the property?" That wants to know if it shows practical difficulty as it relates to a home use and prevent it from being developed as a residence. Mr. Shad answered no. In my opinion, the 2,000 s.f. residence would fit on this lot because it is a double lot. Mr. Okum continued "Will granting this variance being any way detrimental to the adjacent or surrounding properties? Explain ways in which this could be implemented to lessen the impact." Your response was "If we donít get the variance, it will be detrimental to the surrounding area." I think that is a reasonable answer to this question; on the other two, I donít. "Are there alternatives to the variance request which would comply with the zoning code requirements and accomplish a similar objective, and if yes explain." That is unanswered.

Mr. Shad commented the only alternative is to comply with the zoning code, or to make a larger house, but it is up to Mr. Arcaro.

Mr. Squires said you say you will not consider anything more than 1500 s.f. Mr. Arcaro confirmed that.

Mr. Wilson said I would feel more comfortable with a 2-story 1800 s.f. range on this lot. There are some two-story houses in that subdivision. I have mixed feelings; 1500 s.f. is adequate if it is a ranch, and a 2-story would be 3,000 s.f. more than what we require. If we are going to make an exception, 1500 s.f. is not way out of line, although I would rather to see a 2-story, 2000 s.f. residence. For clarification, we are looking at two different houses. We are looking at either a 1500 s.f. ranch as opposed to a12300 s.f. bi-level.



16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Okum said I donít find that the applicant has shown reasons for a variance. He has not answered the demands of the variance request, so I will be voting in opposition to the request for a variance.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance for a 1300 s.f. home at 639 Cloverdale and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

No one voted aye. Voting no were Mr. Squires, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mrs. Huber, Mr. Apke, Mr. Weidlich and Mr. Okum. Variance as denied with seven negative votes.

D. Harry Arcaro, Owner of 543 Cloverdale Avenue requests a variance to allow the construction of a 1,438 s.f. home. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(A) "The minimum area for single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f."

Mr. Arcaro said this is the same situation with these two lots, the same request for the same reasons.

Mr. Allen, the realtor said I really ask your compassion in granting Mr. Arcaro the exception on these two lots. I know you are looking out for Springdale, and I donít think what he is proposing has any negative impact on Springdale. I only think it would benefit it. I would rather see a quality nice home in there and not the empty lots that are there now without the visual appeal. If you were in Mr. Arcaroís shoes, how much money would you invest. Also, I would like you to think about the buyer looking at these houses. I have 18 years of experience, and it will be hard to get a certain price.

I have every home sold through the multiple listing in the last two years, and you show me a price in this area that you are mandating for Mr. Arcaro to build. I love big houses; Mr. Arcaro loves to build them because we both make more commission. He would love to build a larger home, but the market over two years has proven that your theory is not true. That would be a financial hardship to Mr. Arcaro and it would not benefit you or Springdale in any way. I think it is very admirable that you want to create something very positive, a really nice house in Springdale. I love Springdale, but a home will only bring what the market will bring. You talk about somebody knocking a home down and building another home, I donít see anybody doing that. If they did, they would buy these $70,000 homes. Itís not happening right now. If you look at the homes in Beacon Hills, there are probably 40 homes that did not sell in the $150,000 range. A home if priced right will sell in the first month on the market. If it doesnít itís overpriced.

Mr. Okum said for the record, Mr. Allen has presented additional multiple listing items. Weíll assume that the multiple listings submitted for the previous site will be incorporated for this one as well.





16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Okum said I have to make sure that everyone understands that zoning is a law. We donít write or enact the laws; they are part of our government. When an application for variance comes before us, there has to be due cause for said variance, and one of those reasons can be undue hardship. There are four specific areas to consider, besides the undue hardship. Will the property accommodate a 2,000 s.f. home; if it would not, that would be a hardship. In the earlier case, a 2,000 s.f. house could have been built on that property. For this case, we have a 75í x 125í site. Can a 2,000 s.f. home be built on this site?

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said you are looking at a 1300 s.f. bi-level on this lot, 543 Cloverdale. Are you willing to compromise to a 1500 s.f. ranch on that lot? Mr. Arcaro indicated that he would do that. Mr. Squires said that would be your maximum, though and Mr. Arcaro indicated that it would be.

Mr. Wilson said so we understand each other, zoning is not dictated by the market. I can appreciate your wanting to build a quality house. Perhaps you are in the wrong neighborhood if you are looking for $160,000 for a 2,000 s.f. house. The neighborhood might not support that. How do these homes differ from the homes in Beacon Hills and Oxford Hills that are over 2,000 s.f. that donít meet these prices. Is it the market today versus the fact that it is an older home?

Mr. Arcaro responded cost of the materials, cost of the subcontractors; this drives the prices up. I am building a 2,000 s.f. home in Lawrenceburg and it will market for $165,000. I am building one house, because I am a little skeptical of that price range.

Mr. Wilson said these two lots that were at one time three lots are 75í x 125í. The houses that I have seen you build look like track housing. With minor modifications, they all look the same. I canít dictate how you build the exterior of the house, but I am concerned about driving through a neighborhood and seeing houses looking exactly the same except for slight changes in the garage placement. It might be high price track housing, but it is track housing.

Mr. Arcaro commented most subdivisions are that way. Mr. Wilson said that is true, but in my neighborhood, there are three houses that look like mine. All the others are bi-levels or raised ranches or ranches or other types of two-story homes.

Mr. Arcaro said you mentioned track houses. I built 25 bi-levels in Lawrenceburg, which all sold in the last year and a half. Everybody loves them; I have no complaints. I can see what you are saying here in terms of changing elevations. You are looking at it as a square house, which is a track house. It is a more lucrative house to build and be able to give the square footage to the buyer.





16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Wilson said that wonít influence my vote one way or the other. It is a personal comment I have when I drive through the neighborhood and see a lot of houses exactly the same with a few modifications.

Mr. Arcaro said when a house has a 50-foot lot next door; can you put a 2,000 square foot house on that lot? Mr. Okum said I donít think that would be appropriate for Mr. /Wilson to answer. You are asking his opinion. Mr. Arcaro said you couldnít put a 2,000 s.f. house there. Mr. Okum responded what you are saying is that there would be an identifiable hardships to accomplishing this. When a parcel is up for development, it has to meet the zoning code. In this case, 543 Cloverdale, it is a 75í x 125í lot. We have to look to see if you can build a 2,000 s.f. house on that lot. You have to present evidence showing shy you couldnít build it on that lot, and we have to act based on that evidence.

Mr. Arcaro responded but you can put a 2,000 s.f. home on a 75í lot, if you make it a two-story. You could even put a ranch on it, but it would have to be deep.

Mr. Okum said you are saying that on this particular lot, you could build a 2,000 s.f. home. Mr. Arcaro answered the only thing I am asking is the type of money you have to get out of the house. I want the variance because of that, not because you canít put the house on it. I want to get the square footage down and put the house in a price range where I know it can move.

Mr. Apke said I was looking through your b I-level home plans and the total finished area is 1,438 s.f. Is there a reason why the request is for 1,300 s.f.? Mr. Arcaro answered I didnít know that it was 1438 s.f. Mr. Okum said so your request is for a variance to allow a 1,438 s.f. structure.

Mr. Weidlich said y our house is 38 feet across. The total setback is 22 feet, which would make it 60 feet and would leave 15 additional feet of width. Why couldnít you make your house a little wider and add some to your rooms, especially this one bedroom that is 9í x 11í? Mr. Arcaro responded so you are asking me to widen the house. Mr. .Weidlich answered if you used that 15 feet, you would gain 400 square feet on a floor. Mr. Arcaro commented that it could be done with no problem. Mr. Weidlich said would you be willing to do that, and Mr. Arcaro said definitely, yes. Mr. Weidlich said that would make it a 2,000 s.f. home.

Mr. Arcaro said what I am trying to do is be able to build these homes and sell them with no problem. I donít want to argue about this. I understand where you people are coming from. The other thing is I am trying to keep the square footage down as much as possible.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you have indicated that you would have no objection to making the house 50-foot wide. That would offer you an opportunity to have some storage room in the lower level.



16 JANUARY 2001



Mr. Arcaro said Iíll have this plan redrawn and make it 50 feet across the front.

Mr. Okum said the applicant has indicated that he is willing to go to a 50í x 28.8í residential bi-level on this site, which would make it over the 2,000 s.f. required. So you indicated that you can build a 2,000 s.f. bi-level on this site and will not need a variance. Are you withdrawing your request for a variance? Mr. Arcaro indicated that he would.

E. Harry Arcaro, Owner of 547 Cloverdale Avenue requests a variance to allow the construction of a 1,300 s.f. home. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(A) "The minimum area for single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f."

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking those in attendance to address the board. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Arcaro if he had anything to present regarding this lot any different from the earlier lot. He added that this lot is the one with the shed on it. .

Mr. Arcaro said I was intending to leave the shed there. Mr. Okum said you would need a variance for it, because it is over 120 s.f. Mr. Arcaro added it was a horse barn.

Mr. Okum said this still would need a variance because of the barn. Mr. .Arcaro can withdraw his request for a variance for the size of the home, as he has indicated that he wants to do and consider the size of the barn as a separate variance. Mr. Arcaro suggested that he tear the barn down.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Arcaro has indicated that he is not requesting a variance for 547 Cloverdale Avenue.

Mr. Okum said we need to reconsider the variance request for 639 Cloverdale, which we turned down earlier.

Mr. Squires said I move to reconsider the motion on 639 Cloverdale Avenue and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. .Arcaro what he wanted to build on the lot at 639 Cloverdale Avenue. Mr. Arcaro said I can put a 1500 square foot ranch on it; I think it would suit the lot.

Mr. Okum said why not construct the same house you were willing to construct on the other lots? Mr. Arcaro said I didnít think you wanted the bi-level on that lot. That would be fine,

Mr. Okum said let the record show that Mr. Arcaro has withdrawn his request for a variance on 639 Cloverdale Avenue


16 JANUARY 2001


  2. Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Borden asked about the green tarp structure on Cedarhill; it is still there. Mr. Lohbeck said we are handling this; as soon as the Police Department serves the papers, it will be in court. Mr. Okum said there have been comments made to me by other residents in the community that they are pleased to see that the Board of Zoning Appeals handled the issue as they did.


Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,2001 ________________________

David Okum, Chairman



_____________________,2001 __________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary