MAY 17, 2011
7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.


Members Present: Lawrence Hawkins III, Robert Weidlich, William Reichert,
Jane Huber, Dave Okum

Members Absent: Jim Squires, Robert Emerson

Others Present: Randy Campion, Building Inspection Supervisor



Mr. Reichert moved for adoption as written the April 19, 2011 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion and with five affirmative votes from the Board of Zoning Appeals Members present, the minutes were adopted.


Chairman Okum: We received correspondence which is Ordinance No. 14-2011.


Mr. Hawkins gave the Board of Zoning Appeals Members a summary report of the City Council meeting of May 4, 2011; two ordinances were passed, Ordinance 15-2011, declaring Police Department property – surplus property basically authorizing eleven bikes to be donated for kids as a sort of outreach program. Also, Ordinance 16-2011 authorizing an agreement between the City of Springdale and the Board of Hamilton County Commissioners relative to improvements to State Route 747 and the I-175 ramp modifications from northbound State Route 747 from I-275 to westbound ramp, with regard to that it is a $373,000. project and it is a project that should be complete in 2012 but the City is only going to be paying $18,000. of that so we are getting a whole lot of money and that is a really good deal. Of the $18,000., $9,000 is estimated for construction costs and the other $9,000. is for engineering.


    Chairman Okum: Planning Commission did not have a meeting in April, so there is no report.



    (No Old Business to present at this meeting.)


A. Chairman Okum: The owner of 1010 Castro Lane has applied for a variance to place a utility building less than 5’ from the rear and side lot line. Said variance is from Section 153.097(B)(4) “All other structures… must be not less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines.”
    With only five Board of Zoning Appeals Members present tonight, we would need an affirmative vote by the majority; three out of five votes.

    Mr. Paul Neu: The reason I want a variance is if I put the shed 5’ off of my fence line, my back yard is pie-shaped and it angles off and I have a 10’ X 30’ patio; if I am 5’ off of everywhere, it will put the shed right at the corner of my patio which would be ugly. My backyard is so small, if I have to move it over to the center my grandkids won’t have a place to play. What I would like to do is put it on the property line and I have talked to both of my neighbors; the neighbor on the left is good with anything that I do and the neighbor behind me; I wanted to put up a 30’ privacy fence and they have children my grandchildren’s age and they play together so I wanted to put a gate at the edge of the shed and tie onto their chain-link fence.

    Chairman Okum: For the record, there is a legal notice that was sent out to all residents within 200’ of your home, so everyone knows and has an opportunity to come in and hear and express their concern, if there is a concern.
    Seeing there is no one in the audience to comment, we will close this portion of the meeting.

    (At this time Mr. Randy Campion read the Staff comments.)

    Mrs. Huber: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.097(B)(4), so as to allow the location of an accessory structure to be less than 5’ from lot lines at the property located at 1010 Castro Lane. The Code Section says that it requires that a “Structure be located not less than 5’ from the rear and side lot lines.”
(The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins.)

(At this time Mr. Neu came forward and demonstrated by drawing where his patio was located on the property at 1010 Castro Lane.)

Mr. Neu: The patio is 10’ off of the house and it goes down 30’ and then there is a basketball court to the left of that.

Mr. Weidlich: Does that interfere with the first orange square designated by Staff’s drawing?

Mr. Neu: The corner would be right on the corner of the patio.

Mrs. Huber: I think the important thing for us to know is what size accessory structure do you propose?

Mr. Neu: I checked with the City and I am allowed to build an 11’ X 16’ shed, for the size of my property. I would like to build a 12’ X 12’ or I could do 10’ X 10’.

Mr. Hawkins: For the record, so that it is clear, you have a topographical elevation issue in the west-north corner?

Mr. Neu: Yes.

Mr. Hawkins: Where you couldn’t put it up there because of the slant.
In terms of your actual placement of the shed, you would want to put it right on the fence line or would there be any buffer there?

Mr. Neu: I could move it over and that is going to be part of my fence; the lady behind me mows two yards; it doesn’t really affect anybody. I would like to put it on the property line or 6” or 1’, because it would look better.

Mr. Hawkins: Fair enough.

Mr. Reichert: The property to your right as you are facing you house, which is 1030, between the two there is a chain-link fence?

Mr. Neu: Yes; a 5’ high chain-link fence that is 50 years old.

Mr. Reichert: If you put it close to that fence, how do you get weeds and stuff between the fence and the shed cleared out?

Mr. Neu: I’m taking the fence down. I want to put the east side of the building on the property line and a nice fence where my chain-link is.

Mr. Reichert: If we would ask you to bring it in from the property line 1’ or 2’; then you would relocate your fence 1’ in?

Mr. Neu: I would put my fence where it is and then square it up to the corner of the building.

Mr. Weidlich: Mr. Neu, do you know how far your house is from the property line, back in that corner?

Mr. Neu: I would say that is about 17’.

Mr. Weidlich: I am just asking because you are talking about a 12’ shed and 17’ would only leave you 5’ to play with.
Would you be receptive to maybe a 2’ setback on the property line, so that you are able to do maintenance on your shed; because that is the main reason, to keep it clean and be able to paint it along with other maintenance?

Mr. Neu: There is not going to be a fence around there. If I put it on the property line, or whatever, I will have access because all I have to do on the one side is open the gate and go over and paint it.

Mr. Weidlich: That is providing the houses don’t sell and then the new neighbor says “you can’t come over here and do that”.

Mr. Neu: That is my property. The property line goes on an angle.

Mr. Weidlich: I am talking about the property next door; that is one of the main reasons for the setback.

Mr. Neu: I have never had any trouble with neighbors.

Chairman Okum: For your information; a variance stays with your property long beyond our lives; it stays there forever. We have a property maintenance code in Springdale which affects the condition and maintenance of sheds. If we would allow sheds to be built directly on the property line of your neighbor and you don’t have a good relationship with that person next door, then you would not be able to maintain the building.
Just so that you understand if you are going to put up a new fence, and they require permits, you can only go to your front house line; it can’t go past the front of your home.

Mr. Neu: Right.
Chairman Okum: If you were to move the shed 2’ in, then that becomes a very narrow pathway on the diagonal. The Code has been modified to allow for residents with larger properties to build a shed that is comparable to that property size. It used to be that you were only allowed 120 square foot shed; 10’ X 12’. It didn’t matter whether you had an acre lot or a half acre lot – 120 square foot shed and that is all you got.
I understand your practical difficulty of building it up on the hill.

Mr. Neu: I would like to suggest a 10’ X 12’ shed; 2’ off of the property line generally in the location where I requested in my application.

Mr. Weidlich: Why couldn’t Mr. Neu go to a 10’ X 14’ shed, instead of 10’ X 12’ and then he would have just about the same square footage as he was originally asking for?

Mr. Neu: I think the kits come in 10’ X 12’ or 12’’X 12’.

Mr. Campion: Is Mr. Neu proposing a 0’ lot line at the rear?

Chairman Okum: Is he is holding off 2’ feet, then he will be off 2’.

Mr. Neu: I will make it 2’ off of the north-east corner and that will be where my 10’ side is (of the building) and 2’ off of the original fence.

Chairman Okum: For purposes of reference; the original fence is a point of reference because we don’t have surveyed lot lines.

Mr. Weidlich: I would like to make an amendment to the motion for the property at 1010 Castro Lane, to allow for up to a 10’ X 14’ shed with a 2’ setback off of each property line at the northeast corner.
(Mr. Reichert seconded the amendment to the motion.)

All Members present of the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals, signified by affirmative vote to accept the amendment to the original motion.

(Mrs. Huber polled the Board Members present and with a 5-0 “aye” vote, the variance for 1010 Castro was granted with conditions.)

Mr. Campion: I do want to remind you that you will need to get a building permit for the shed and the fence.


Chairman Okum: I want to thank Staff for the drawing, the Staff review and the comments along with the Cagis drawing, as well, that was incorporated into the packets; they are very beneficial. It makes it a lot easier to make decisions with that much information.

Mr. Reichert: With the Cagis drawing, is that a property line or a fence line; is there any way that we can distinguish the difference?

Mr. Campion: We are not supposed to use Cagis drawings for anything legal; we use them as reference.


Mr. Hawkins moved to adjourn, Mr. Reichert seconded the motion and with a unanimous “aye” vote from the Board of Zoning Appeals Members present, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2011 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum

________________________,2011 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber