18 MARCH 2008

7:00 P.M.


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


Members Present:     Mr. Emerson, Mr. Diehl, Mr. Danbury, Mr. Weidlich,
Chairman Okum, Mrs. Huber, Mr. Reichert

Others Present:     Mr. Campion, Inspection Supervisor



Mrs. Huber moved to adopt the Minutes of February 19, 2008 as presented. Mr. Reichert seconded the motion. All Board of Zoning Members voted aye and the 19 February 2008 Minutes were approved.


A. Zoning Bulletin – February 1, 2008
B. Zoning Bulletin – February 25, 2008


Mr. Danbury reported that at the last Council meeting only one item was on the agenda it was an Ordinance for the Mayor and Clerk of Council to enter into a contract with CDS and associates for engineering for the summer street program.
Tomorrow night will be the first reading of an Ordinance that is going to require people who are renting their house out to have a license; they will have to renew this every year. The City will reserve the right to come in and inspect and make sure everything is up to code.

Chairman Okum asked if the Zoning Changes made it to the floor of Council.
Mr. Danbury answered no.
Chairman Okum responded that it is probably in the Law Director’s office. You may see it sometime this month, after it gets reviewed. Those involve the changes that were recommended by this Board regarding variances and accessory structures and size proportional to the yard sizes.

Mr. Danbury added that we are now in the running with West Chester, Liberty Township and Northern Kentucky to possibly get an additional 1500 jobs from GE. This will be good for the City. They might come and try to get some type of tax incentives. To do this they have to get the buyout from the School Board, as well.
Chairman Okum: We have already got GE located here for part of their operation, but GE is all over the Tri-State area.
Mrs. Huber: Is that all office people?
Mr. Danbury responded: I would imagine so.


Chairman Okum reported that Planning Commission had a very unusual meeting last week; we started the meeting at 7:00 PM and concluded the meeting at 7:07 PM, it was historical. Actually what we did, there was a formal presentation of the Springdale/ Tri-County retail corridor revitalization study. That was done by Kinzelman Kline and Gossman out of Covington; they are a Planning Service that the City hired to look at our business district – the heart of the retail. Their presentation looked at where the Tri-County business district will be thirty years from now. Two key areas which was the Princeton Plaza quadrant and the Cassinelli quadrant and what could potentially happen to those areas if they could be redeveloped; the net result was that those businesses with their investment would ultimately end up better off with more value to their land and more


retail value, customer wise, business wise and property value wise if they made
commitments to their properties. I think they looked at a $100,000,000. investment
into that area, it is a big investment.
If this happens the identity of Tri-county Mall, the Tri-County area in Springdale will continue to be a key element of people’s minds.

Mr. Danbury added that this is not just retail, they are looking at multi-land use; they are looking at putting in some condos in a green space that is currently retail and they would just totally change the usage of the land.



Chairman Okum reviewed 153.710 Variances – The rules of consideration for Board of Zoning Appeals for deliberating on an issue. There are seven items of consideration and then an additional four items of consideration. Those items are basically a refinement; they went through this Board for review, they do include case law that was brought to the City that needed to be added because we were not considering those items and when we deliberate on an issue all of these factors should be considered weighing as part of our deliberation. Council approved it, it went through the Law Director’s office and actually it is what we drafted. The critical change that gives this Board the ability to execute its work is that it doesn’t say you must, it says we shall consider these. It is not a “yes – yes – yes”; that person doesn’t have to answer to every one of these conditions a “yes” in order for a variance to be granted.



Chairman Okum: Said variance is requested from Section 153.492 (B) prohibits accessory structures in the side yard; Section 153.492 (B)(1) permits only one accessory structure on the lot and 153.492 (B)(3) states that accessory structures shall not exceed 120 s.f.

Mr. Rohn Reminga: I am Rohn Reminga of 741 Yorkhaven Road. I am the applicant for this variance. The property owner is my father, Richard Reminga, he could not make it to this meeting. Five or six years ago I looked into putting together a canopy for a boat to protect it from the weather. Sam’s Club had a canopy that was a 10’ X 20’. I contacted the Building Department at that time and explained what I would like to do and asked if there was a problem with that and whether I would need any special building permit; and at that time there was nothing that was needed. So I purchased the canopy and put it over the boat and it has been up for five or six years. I have replaced the canvas one time during the five or six years. Back in September of last year I considered changing that to a sheet metal sided canopy. I purchased the sheet metal and in about five days I assembled that and then I received a letter from the Building Department that I was in violation because I did not receive a building permit. I contacted Gordon King (Springdale Residential Inspector) and he said I needed a building permit but I could not get a building permit because I already had a shed on the property.

Mr. Campion read the staff comments: The applicant has requested a variance to allow an approximate 10’ X 20’ (200 s.f.) freestanding metal awning/ carport to remain on his property. The awning/carport covers the applicant’s boat. The applicant has an existing accessory structure (shed) in his rear yard. Section 153.492 (B)(1) permits only one accessory structure on the lot and 153.492 (B)(3) states that accessory structures shall not exceed 120 s.f. The awning/carport is located in the side yard. Section 153.492 (B) prohibits accessory structures on the side yard.
The side yard is determined by the rear lot line or the rear of the property, so if a line were drawn from the rear of the house across the yard.

Chairman Okum opened the floor for communication from the public. No one came forward, at this time. Just for the record, it is mandatory and a notice was sent out to residents 200 feet in all directions of the property, so that there was public notice given to them regarding the variance request.

Mrs. Huber: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.492 (B)(1) and
Section 153.492 (B)(2) so as to allow an approximate 10’ X 20’ free standing metal awning to remain on property located at 723 Yorkhaven Road.
Mr. Emerson: I will second the motion.


Mr. Emerson: Mr. Reminga, when you had the canvas up, how long did it take you to tear the canvas down, the structure itself?
Mr. Reminga: Actually I used the existing poles that were there from the canvas, so the only thing that was added was the sheet metal siding. So I would say within 1 - 2 hours the actually canvas canopy came off and the metal pole structure was remaining up there.
Mr. Emerson: Is it bolted to the ground?
Mr. Reminga: It is not currently, because of the violation that I had received on this. That would be my next step. Does it need to be bolted down?
Mr. Campion: We look at it as a structure. When it was a canopy, we do not issue permits for those, they are more of a temporary building. This has walls, a roof and if you look at it as a structure then it would have to be anchored to the ground; it has wind lift requirements and things like that so we would just look at it in the building code as everything that would be required of a structure. If this Board granted a variance then we would require you to get a permit and if you got a permit it would have to be bolted six foot on center to the ground. It would require some kind of footing that it sat on.
Mr. Reminga: There is a concrete pad and it would be anchored to that concrete pad.
Mr. Campion: These poles, they attach together somehow?
Mr. Reminga: The sheet metal is actually bolted with 2” long bolts through the pole and a nut on the other side.

Mr. Diehl: What is the life expectancy of the canopy sheet metal?
Mr. Reminga: That I do not know. It could rust, it is a galvanized sheet metal meant for exterior usage. As far as I am concerned it is going to be there as long as I own the boat.
Mr. Diehl: This sheet metal building, what is it used for.
Mr. Reminga: I keep a boat under it.
Mr. Diehl: In the picture there are other objects, like a charcoal grill.
Mr. Reminga: That charcoal grill is temporary. It is supposed to be out of there.
Mr. Diehl: How do we know that that is going to be the case?
Mr. Reminga: I could get it out this weekend. I guess I need a clarification of what is allowed under there.

Mr. Reichert: Mr. Campion, you said this is a structure?
Mr. Campion: Yes. It has walls and a roof; I would consider it a structure.

Mr. Weidlich: Saturday, when I drove by I saw trash containers in there and flower pots and I couldn’t tell what else was also under that structure.
Mr. Reminga: My question would be, is that a violation? If that is a violation I will get rid of it.
Mr. Weidlich: In my opinion, driving by your parent’s home, it looked tacky. If you were given a variance what would be the chance of you maybe covering the front of the structure to hide the boat and whatever else is under there?
Mr. Reminga: That is actually the intent. There is a plastic trim that goes all the way around it with eyelets that go all the way up and around it, on both the front and the back.
Basically, what happened when this was changed to the sheet metal and within a period of three or four weeks that is when I received the violation letter. At that point I ceased everything until we get the variance taken care of.

Mrs. Huber: Sir, how big is your father’s garage?
Mr. Reminga: It is a two car garage; I would say it is about 18’ deep by 15’ wide. The boat will not fit in the garage.
Mrs. Huber: Well, garages can be a certain size and you have 200 s.f. apart from the garage. Was there ever any thought of putting this in the back of the house?
Mr. Reminga: There is no where in the back yard to put it because there is a natural type of drainage that runs from the top of the hill. The back yard is pretty much a soppy, wet mess the majority of the year.
Mrs. Huber: We had an instance last month of a man with a much, much smaller structure against his garage and the garage was detached in the rear of a yard and he was denied and I think if I lived next door to your father that would bother me with this big thing out there. That is my opinion.

Mr. Diehl: I went by the property today and I also saw garbage cans and stuff in this thing. And the only way I could possibly vote yes for this is that I have some assurance that this would be for a boat only.
Mr. Reminga: I will guarantee that the garbage cans will be kept inside except on trash day.


Mr. Danbury: I used to have a boat and now I do not. What is going to happen if eventually you get rid of this boat or get a bigger boat?
Mr. Reminga: The boat is thirty years old and our family has had the boat thirty years. Previously, Mom and Dad owned a 30’ motor home and there was a motor home sitting there and the boat was sitting on a neighbor’s pad and it was the same situation. Since the motor home has been sold the pad opened up and that is where we stored the boat and put a canopy over it. If I were to replace the boat and I lived where I still live today and Dad still lives there then that would be the maximum size boat I would buy. I would not buy anything bigger. If I did not have the boat I would tear it down and take it off the property.
Mr. Danbury: Any variance that we would have, these are perpetual. Eventually your folks are going to move somewhere and if we do grant this the new owners will be looking at this structure and they may have an understanding that they could store stuff out there.
Mr. Reminga: That is the reason we had it free standing, so that it could be torn down.
And if this variance would not go through then I will take it down and look to find someone who would be interested in it. That is the primary purpose, if the boat is not there personally I don’t see the purpose of having the canopy there.

Mr. Emerson: How much room is between the wall of the canopy and the house?
Mr. Reminga: Twenty-eight to thirty-six inches or so.
Mr. Emerson: I understand trying to take advantage of the poles. Have you ever priced maybe a carport on the side of your house?
Mr. Reminga: The problem with that is it would be a permanent structure and that was what we were trying to avoid. If we did get rid of the boat or we did move we could remove it without doing any damage to the brick on the side of the house.
Mr. Emerson: If it was a carport I don’t think it would be such an issue as a second structure on the property. It would be an addition to your home. I actually think it looks better than a canopy. I own a boat and it is sitting out in the rain.

Chairman Okum: I am not sure if our code allows for awnings to be on the side of a home; we would have to look at that before I would make that recommendation to go to an awning. Accessory buildings are to be behind the rear of the house. I understand that if it is canvas and we have a significant wind storm it could rip off; with the metal we could have sheets of metal flying all over. This is no different than a storage shed on the side of a house and the Zoning Code is pretty specific about accessory structures. I think the Building Department was right. This property has a large side lot and they could probably put an addition on the garage – a structural addition that would be able to accommodate a boat. There is nothing different between this and a metal shed. If we grant a variance to this we are actually adding a second accessory structure on your property; I would probably not be able to support it because it is that second accessory structure.
The convenience for a boat which we allow in our Zoning Code and motor homes on side lots and rear lots is something we brought into our code and allowed. Back 25 years ago that was prohibited. Your Dad was involved in that with me; that brought about the change to our code to allow boats and motor homes to be kept at their homes, and it was model legislation that other communities copied. By covering it, it spoils the issue. I don’t want to personally see canopies, covers, huts put over top of every accessory use, trailers, motor homes in Springdale. The one thing that we cannot grant you is a temporary use; that is not permitted in our code. That is not permitted by law. Once we grant that variance it stays with that property forever.

Mr. Danbury: If they didn’t have a shed on their property then this would be o.k.
Chairman Okum: It would have to be behind the house, and it would require a variance because of location and size.
Mr. Danbury: If there was a carport?
Mr. Campion: It would be an addition to your house. It would be attached to your house and you would have to meet the side yard setback.
Mr. Danbury: So there is an option. On a personal basis I understand where you are coming from. But from a Board Member it is setting a precedent. I have to do what is best for the City of Springdale.

Mr. Reminga: Is it my understanding that if I go back to the canopy cover, I am not in violation at all. Is that correct that it can stand for thirty years.
Mr. Campion: We consider that a temporary structure.

Mr. Weidlich: How long does that boat cover last, and how much does that cost?
Mr. Reminga: That is a shrink wrap and it is designed for winter. I think it is probably about $200-$300. You basically take it off in the springtime and you use a regular boat cover that lasts 1 to 2 years.


Chairman Okum: Is there any motions to amend, at this time.
Seeing there are no motions to amend can we vote on the request?

Mrs. Huber polled the Board: With seven “no” votes the request for a variance for an additional accessory structure at 723 Yorkhaven Road was denied.

    Chairman Okum: Said variance is requested from Section 153.082 (B)(4) requires accessory structures to be located not less than 5 feet from the rear and side lot lines and Section 153.492 (B)(3) does not permit accessory buildings to exceed 120 s.f.

    Mr. Steve Plapp of 11840 Mangrove Lane representing the owner of property, Mrs. Kathie Obermeyer – Plapp stated they are a widow, widower team married a little over seven years at this time. My wife has been at this address for 43 years and had an in-house flower business for brides. The need she had for a garage was to have two coolers in there; so there was no room for a car. Some years ago I picked up a riding lawnmower which I now put in the garage and we did get rid of one of the coolers but what I would like to do we have a small attached facility that projects out no more than 4’ from the West side of the house. Unfortunately it is not made of pressure type of wood and it is starting to warp at the bottom. I would like to go ahead and get a shed big enough to facilitate the tractor and putting everything in this shed into the new shed, unfortunately a 12’ X 10’ would not facilitate that use it would take a 16’ X 10’; so that is the reason for the request for the variance. It will have a permanent ramp.
    We were contacted by the City of Springdale because the proposed area was on a piece of the Park. The City of Springdale called me on this rather quickly and said you cannot develop anything on City property; so consequently I am going to move it over onto our property in the back. It will be very decorative, it is a very nice looking back yard and this will be a very eye-appealing type of structure. It is going to be back on our property well with the 5’ limit from the property line.

    Chairman Okum: So let me understand, you are not requesting to put it on your rear property line; you will put it 5’ from the property line?
    Mr. Plapp: Yes.
    Chairman Okum: So that portion of the request is being removed by the applicant, is that correct?
    Mr. Plapp: Yes.
    Chairman Okum: So the Section 153.082 (B)(4) requires accessory structures be located from the rear lot line be stricken from the request.
    Mr. Plapp: Yes.
    Chairman Okum: So we are really only dealing with the size of the unit.
    Mr. Plapp: Correct.
    Mr. Emerson: It sounds like you are going to take down the utility that is built along side the house?
    Mr. Plapp: Yes.
Mr. Emerson: So you are really not needing a variance for a second structure but you are wanting an oversized utility shed in the back yard, so that you can take the one down?
Mr. Plapp: Yes, sir.
Chairman Okum: So we are only talking one accessory structure on the property?
Mr. Plapp: Yes, sir.
Mr. Reichert: You mentioned it will be in the rear yard, what will it be setting on?
Mr. Plapp: It will be set on pressure treated timbers. They are going to be 4” X 4” and they will be proofed of everything except termites. It will have a tongue and groove floor.

Mr. Campion read the staff report: Request for an oversized shed at 11840 Mangrove Lane. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10’ X 16’ (160 s.f.) accessory structure utility building to be placed 5’ from the rear property line. Section 153.492 (B)(3) does not permit accessory buildings to exceed 120 s.f. The maximum floor area for evaluated against proposed legislation is as follows:
    12,200 s.f. (lot area) X 2% = 244.4 s.f. or,
    1,500 (dwelling area) X .12% = 180 s.f.
If the proposed legislation was in effect today, the area of the 10’ X 16’ structure would not require a variance.

Chairman Okum: I think that the legislation is the lesser of the two. Is that how it ultimately ended up?
Mr. Campion: Yes.


Chairman Okum: I mentioned earlier that there is legislation that has been approved through this Board. It has gone through the Planning Commission. It has gone to the City Planner and their recommendations and then it went back to Planning Commission with an approval and their recommendation to Council. It currently is being reviewed by our Law Director’s Office for final wording. I would anticipate from favorable conversations I have had with other people that that legislation will pass. And what Mr. Campion has indicated in staff’s report is that you would be permitted this 16’ X 10’ under this Zoning Code; and I think that this is information that is vital to the decision making process here.

So, at this point I will open up the floor to anyone from the public that would like to address the Board.
(No one came forward.)

Mr. Diehl: When are you planning to do this?
Mr. Plapp: Within 30 days.
Chairman Okum: I will be supporting this based upon the size of the lot, the size of the dwelling and the request and the applicant’s willingness to hold it back from the property line as code requires.
Mr. Emerson: Do we have to have an amendment put in there with the agreement that the current utility structure is disassembled?
Chairman Okum: I think that would be necessary.
Mr. Reichert: I will make a motion for the address 11840 Mangrove; applicant is requesting a variance for a 10’ X 16’ (160 s.f.) from Section 153.492 (B)(3).
Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.
Chairman Okum: We need to do an amendment to the motion that the applicant remove the existing accessory structure from the site.
Mrs. Huber moved to amend the motion and Mr. Weidlich seconded the amended motion.
All Board Members unanimously signified by “aye” that the applicant remove the existing structure.
Mr. Plapp: Could I keep the existing structure until I have the new structure built so that I have a place to move the contents.
Chairman Okum: The City of Springdale would not find that a problem; the Building Department would be happy to work with you on that.
Mr. Campion: You can do that and you are going to come in and get a permit for the new shed.
Mr. Plapp: Yes.
Mrs. Huber poled the Board and with a unanimous “aye” vote the variance was granted.


Mr. Emerson asked what was the difference between the canopy at this meeting and the plastic passive solar structure from last month’s request?
Chairman Okum: They are both structures. It does raise some questions; what is prohibiting that person from putting a blue tarp canopy over accessory elements? I think we need to look at that and Randy I think it is very important that these code revisions that are going through the Law Director’s Office right now, maybe we tag that because
I certainly don’t want to see a bunch of blue tarps over accessory elements on property.
I don’t think that would be good for Springdale.


A motion was made to adjourn by Mrs. Huber and seconded by Mr. Reichert, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:19 P.M.

                            Respectfully submitted,

        ____________________________, 2007 ______________________________
                            David Okum, Chairman

_____________________________, 2007 ______________________________
                            Jane Huber, Secretary