Board of Zoning
Appeals Meeting Minutes
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order
at
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Fred Borden, Robert Emerson, Marjorie
Pollitt, James Squires, Robert Weidlich,
Jane Huber and Chairman Okum.
Others Present: William McErlane, Building Official
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF
Mr. Squires moved to adopt and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
A.
Zoning Bulletin –
B.
Zoning Bulletin –
C.
Zoning Bulletin –
D.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes –
E.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes –
F.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes –
VI. REPORTS
A. Report on Council Activities
Mr. Squires reported that at the last meeting, we had the first reading of an ordinance to allow us to identify and address blighted areas within the city. It would be used only when the violations are chronic and ongoing and all other measures have failed to remedy the situation. Council also passed a resolution supporting the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority’s application for low income housing tax credits. CMHA is going to build multi units across from Maple knoll. They assure us they will begin construction of those in 2005 even if they don’t get the tax credits.
B. Report on Planning Commission
Mr. Okum reported on the February
meeting. Planning granted approval of
the Sprint/PCS antenna to be located on top of the Howard Johnson sign. The
request for approval of four driveway connections to the street at
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE TWO
VI B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION – CONTINUED
Mr. Okum said at the March
meeting,
Mr. McErlane reported that they
added trees when they did the department store.
They created a new landscape bed around their sign and planted several
trees in that location. They also
replanted in front of the building when they redid the department store as
well. Mr. Squires said there is nothing
on the
Mr. McErlane reported that when the department store came through, the existing façade on the building was a glazed white brick that had problems with it spauling all the way across the front and around the sides. The department store refaced that with a drivitt system. The only thing that was changed was the entrance around the furniture store, so the furniture store is now making some modifications to that, but not to the extent that the department store did.
VII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE THREE
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Administrative Appeal – Planning Commission Denial of Landscape and Driveway Plan, 12050 Princeton Pike (Staples)
Mr. Okum said we have a letter of correspondence from the applicant’s lawyer and a phone call from the applicant. We also have a situation where this is an appeal to a Planning Commission decision.
The applicant has requested that this be continued, but because this has been advertised and there may be someone else in the audience that would like to address the board in this regard, we are going to open the hearing. If no one comes forward, we will continue the hearing in progress based on the applicant’s request. If there is someone here, we’ll hear their testimony and their position. Is that what we need to do, Mr. McErlane?
Mr. McErlane reported I would recommend that you not hear testimony tonight, that you just open the public hearing and hear testimony next month.
Mr. Okum responded could we at least give someone who has come to the meeting the opportunity to comment?
Mr. McErlane answered I would recommend against it, because I believe that the city’s staff needs to be here. Everybody that is going to be involved in it needs to be here to hear the testimony.
Mr. Okum said so I will open the public hearing to give the opportunity for it to be continued. Anyone who is here that came for the purpose of giving testimony or wishes to address the board in this regard, please understand that the applicant has requested that this be continued. It is the decision of this board whether they want to continue this to the next meeting, but if it is continued, you are more than welcome to address the board at that meeting.
Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. He said since this is open to the public, is there anyone who would like to address the board?
Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if we had correspondence from the applicant. Mr. McErlane reported that we have correspondence from the applicant asking for a continuance until the April 19th meeting.
Mr. Okum said is there anyone else who would like to address the board in this regard? No one came forward, and Mr. Okum said we will close the discussion from the public at this time, but we will reopen it if this is continued.
Mr. McErlane said I would suggest that you continue the public hearing in process until the next meeting.
Mr. Borden moved to continue the
public hearing in process and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the hearing
was continued to
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE FOUR
B.
Reverend Horsley said we want to place the library on the north side of the sanctuary to get closer proximity to the college. It will be a library for the college, so it needs to be close to the classroom so the students will have easy access to it. There is plenty of space to house it and with putting in landscape properly there should be no problem.
Mr. Okum said we received three building elevations, a floor plan of the building and a hand rendered site plan showing the requested area for the building.
Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a 4,500 s.f. library building on the north side of their existing church and college. Planning Commission granted a conditional approval for the project, and one of the conditions was that the applicant obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The reason for the variance is
because the property is currently zoned
Residential Single Household – Low Density (RSH-L). A number of churches in
Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance based on the submitted drawings, and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires asked if they intended to remove the shed that is in the back, and Reverend Horsley answered no.
Mr. Okum said because this creates two accessory buildings on the site, do we need to deal with the storage shed issue?
Mr. McErlane responded probably so. When you go into the code and look for the requirements for it, you start with 153.067 (B) which says that the accessory structures have to be in the rear yard but it refers you back to 153.492 which limits you to one shed and 120 s.f. If you want to include Section 153.492 relative to the size and the number of buildings, that would take care of it.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE FIVE
Mr. Squires moved to amend the motion to include Section 153.492 to allow more than one shed over 120 s.f. and Mr. Borden seconded the motion.
On the amendment, all voted aye, and the motion was amended unanimously.
On the motion to grant the variance, all voted aye and the variance was granted unanimously.
X. DISCUSSION
Mr. Okum said Mr. McErlane indicated that staff is working on changes to the Zoning Code. If there are any items that you think need to be looked at, this is an opportunity to get your input.
I do see one item, and that is you could have a 120 s.f. shed but you can build a 24’ x 24’ garage. If I took out my one-car garage and put a two-car garage in my back yard, I’m legal but I could only have 120 s.f. shed. I think we need to take a look at that. I think one accessory building is appropriate, but I think building density and lot density is important as well. Maybe we could look at that and see how it could work.
Mr. McErlane said if you have some suggestions, I’ll gladly consider them. Mr. Okum answered I haven’t come up with one, but I am a little bit concerned. Mr. Borden said are you suggesting scaling the accessory buildings according to lot size? Mr. Okum responded something needs to be done, because you can build a two-car garage on a single-family residential lot provided you don’t have another garage on the lot. If I were to take a Heritage Hill or Terrace home, close off the garage and make it a family room, and then agree to build a 24’ x 24’ garage in my back yard, as long as I adhered to the Zoning Code setbacks, I think I would be legal. Am I wrong?
Mr. McErlane reported that there are some other limitations that would apply. One is that you have to have at least a 10-foot side yard to accommodate putting a driveway through to it. Mr. Okum commented that is a little hard in Heritage Hill and The Terrace. Mr. McErlane continued that there is a maximum rear yard land coverage of 18% for the accessory building and a maximum of 35% land coverage for all structures in the rear yard.
Mr. Borden said if you had two lots, could you build a garage on the second lot. Mr. McErlane responded if you wanted to consolidate the lots. You can’t put an accessory building on a lot that has no principal building on it.
Mr. Emerson said my neighbor has an extra lot. If a person were to buy it, he would have to consolidate them. But with two-car garages on the far end, he wouldn’t be allowed to put a two-car garage on his second lot.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE SIX
X. DISCUSSION - continued
Mr. McErlane responded you can only have an accessory building on a lot that has a principal use on it, so it could only be on the lot that has the house on it. Then, he could only have one garage. So if he decided to convert the existing one, he would have to do something with the driveway, either connect to his new garage from that driveway or remove that driveway to put another one in.
Mr. Okum said if you have anything that you want to be reviewed, please get it to me so I can get it to staff.
Mr. Emerson responded a couple of months ago we ran into that situation where the applicant had a privacy fence 10 inches inside her chain link fence. That might be something that should be addressed, to at least back it up so you can maintain your yard, to allow enough room to push a lawnmower through.
Mr. Weidlich said it should be that the property owner can only have one fence, not two. Both of those were her fences. Mr. Emerson added that some people put up sections of privacy fence to shade a pool or for privacy by the deck. We don’t restrict that.
..
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and
Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion. By
voice vote, all voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
__________________,2005 __________________________
David Okum, Chairman
__________________,2005 __________________________
Jane Huber, Secretary