MAY 19, 2009
7:00 P.M.


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


Members Present: Robert Diehl, Robert Weidlich, Robert Emerson, Jane Huber, Dave Okum, William Reichert, Randy Danbury

Others Present: Randy Campion, Inspection Supervisor



Mrs. Huber moved for acceptance the April 21, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Reichert seconded the motion and with a unanimous vote from all Board of Zoning Appeals Members the April Board of Zoning Appeals minutes were adopted.


a. Zoning Bulletin - April 10, 2009
b. Zoning Bulletin - April 25, 2009


Mr. Danbury gave a report on Council including an update on the Veterans Memorial.


No report given for Planning Commission; Planning Commission did not meet during the month of April.



A. The owner of 11840 Lawnview Avenue requests a variance to allow the elimination of the garage. Said variance is from Section 153.105(B)”A single two-car garage and related parking area is required…”
(No representative came forward and this request was moved to the end of the agenda.)

B. The owner of 650 Castro Lane has applied for a variance to place a utility building
1’ from the 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.”

Mary Madgett: I live at 650 Castro Lane. I bought this house in 1974 and when I bought it the shed was already there; I assumed that it was to code. It needs to be taken away and a new one put up, so all I want to do is replace it. If I move the building forward 5’ then it is going to go into my little rock garden. I would like to have the new shed in the same spot as the old shed.

Chairman Okum: We have a photo sheet with 9 photos and we also have from Buckeye Barns Incorporated several sheets describing the shed that you are going to build.

(At this time Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments; no one came forward.)

Mrs. Huber: I make a motion to grant a variance from Section 153.097(B)(4) so as to allow the placement of a utility building 1’ from side lot line at 650 Castro Lane.
Mr. Emerson seconded the motion.

Mr. Reichert: Is there still a shed there?

Ms. Madgett: Yes.

Mr. Reichert: What type of floor is in the shed?

Ms. Madgett: It is wood. The new shed will also have a wood floor.

Mr. Reichert: How big is the new shed; and are the doors going to be in the same place?

Ms. Madgett: It will be an 8’ X 10’ and the door will be in the same place. It will be exactly the same, except the roof on the new building will be a quarter roof verses a barn type roof.

Mrs. Huber: In the last picture, it shows your dog standing in what looks like a foundation for something?

Ms. Madgett: No, that is my rock garden with a cement bench and a bird bath.

Chairman Okum: Does your house face Castro or Ledro?

Ms. Madgett: It faces Castro.

Chairman Okum: The door will be at the end and the building will be longwise the same as your house?

Ms. Madgett: Yes.

Chairman Okum: For maintenance purposes behind the shed it is all pavers? You would not need to get any equipment behind that to maintain it?

Ms. Madgett: Right. My fence is 10” from my property line into my yard.

Chairman Okum: So the 1’ that you see there is really 1’-7” from the property line.

Mr. Diehl: Could you move the shed another 17” to 19”?

Ms. Madgett: I probably could.

Mr. Diehl: Would you be agreeable to something less than 5’ but more than what you have?

Ms. Madgett: Yes. I just don’t want it to look bulky in my yard.

Mr. Diehl: I would like to amend the motion for the utility building to be 2’7” from the true property line.
Mr. Emerson seconded the amendment to the motion.

(Five Board of Zoning Appeals Members signified by saying “Aye” for the amendment to the motion with 2 Board of Zoning Members, Mr. Weidlich and Mr. Emerson in opposition to the amendment.)

Chairman Okum: Mrs. Huber will you poll the Board on an amended motion?

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeal Members and with 5 “aye” votes and 2 “no” votes, the variance to allow the placement of a utility building 2’-7” from the true property line was granted.

C. The owner of 12064 Springfield Pike is requesting a variance to allow a one day display of 200 - 3’ balloons. Said variance is from Section 153.533(B)(2) “Balloons shall be of the fan inflatable type…Only one such balloon shall be permitted per occurrence on a zoning lot.”

Mr. James Warman: 12064 Springfield Pike is my business address. We are opening a film and we also have a sneak preview of the film; it is about a man who attaches thousands of balloons to his house so that he can take a trip to South America and part of the promotion is that we would like to put these balloons up. The local news and radio stations are covering it for the night of our sneak preview to get a lot of exposure.

Chairman Okum: How high will they be off the ground?

Mr. James Warman: Probably no higher than about 100 feet – about 70 feet off our building.

Chairman Okum: So that would be not much higher than your sign?

Mr. James Warman: We can make it whatever we need it to be, if you say you want it no higher than our sign, then that is what we will do. May 27th we are doing the sneak preview and that is when we are putting up the balloons – just a one day event.
We have a professional company that handles balloons so they will be in good hands.

Chairman Okum: They are all latched together?

Mr. Warman: Yes.

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

Chairman Okum: Can we have the square feet of the display?

Mr. Warman: It is not very far off the top of the building.

Mrs. Huber: How are these anchored?

Mr. Warman: That, I do not know; we do have a professional company doing that.

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments; no one came forward.)

Mr. Reichert: I would like to make a motion for a variance to Section 153.533(B)(2) to allow the helium balloons for a one-day event, May 27, 2009.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Weidlich.

Chairman Okum: We have a motion for permission for a variance to allow for
200 – 3’ balloons on May 27th, 2009 at 12064 Springfield Pike.

Mr. Campion: Did you want to put in an approximate height?

Chairman Okum: Did you want to include, “Not to exceed the sign height on I-275”?

Mr. Reichert: Yes, to include “Not to exceed the sign height on I-275”;
seconded by Mr. Weidlich.

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeal Members and with a unanimous 7-0 vote, the variance to allow the display of 200 – 3’ balloons on top of Showcase Cinema, 12064 Springfield Pike was granted.

D. The owner of 684 Smiley Avenue requests a variance to increase the impervious surface ratio to 0.545. Said variance is from 153.059(C) “In no case shall the impervious surface ratio exceed .50”.

Ms. Twana Snively: I am the owner of 684 Smiley Avenue.
Mr. Joseph Taylor: I am the contractor from J.C. Square Contractors.

Ms. Twana Snively: I am requesting a variance for a gazebo for entertainment and storage; not a shed.

Chairman Okum: I see that you have answered the application questions and the floor plans are also included in our material. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Mr. Taylor: The gazebo will compliment the area. It is designed to be a closed gazebo with glass sliding doors.

(At this time Mr. Randy Campion read the Staff report.)
Mr. Campion: All of the square footage, you have to count all of the structures and the pool and it is all added together. The addition would be part of the house and that wouldn’t count towards the impervious surface ratio.

Chairman Okum: Typically, we used to allow 120 s.f. storage shed - accessory building. When we updated the code with the additional square footage we expanded that to allow some flexibility based upon oversized lots. The gazebo is actually an additional building on your property. Will it have electric?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. No heating or cooling involved, but electric for basic lighting purposes.

Chairman Okum: How high is the gazebo building?

Mr. Taylor: Nine foot ceilings.

Chairman Okum: One of the reasons that you don’t have a sea of asphalt or a sea of concrete or a sea of elements on a property is density and impervious surface ratio is one way of measuring that; they look at everything that is on your property.

Mr. Reichert: Just for clarification; we are not voting on the gazebo, we are voting on the impervious surface ratio?

Mr. Campion: That is right.

Mr. Reichert: Has the applicant had the gazebo approved?

Mr. Campion: I think he is waiting on your decision on the impervious surface ratio.

Mr. Taylor: I have submitted and I believe the approval is contingent upon your decision.

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments; no one came forward.)

Mr. Danbury: I am looking at what you want to do and 12 ’ X 15’ is a very, very big structure especially on a lot that we don’t have a lot of land to work with. To come back to the correct ratio, what other options do you have to accomplish that?

Ms. Snively: 12’ X 12’ perhaps; or smaller maybe?

Mr. Campion: The sum total of all the accessory structures, which would be the pool and the size of the gazebo, those two combined can’t be more than 35% of the lot; and the lot is 12,500 s.f. ; the pool is 529 s.f. and the proposed gazebo is 187 s.f.

Mr. Okum: Based upon the code that has been approved, the accessory structure allowable for this site is 174 s.f. I do not have a Cagis on this to see what is next to it; Staff has some aerial photos provided.

Ms. Snively: So that would be what, a 12’X 14’?

Mr. Diehl: A 12’ X 14’; yes.

Mr. Okum: That would make the request 168 s.f. utility building, which reduces the size of the building.

Mr. Taylor: The gazebo will be on part of the deck.

Mr. Campion: The footings for the slab are already poured for the deck and they cannot build on it because they don’t have footers for the gazebo.

Mr. Reichert: I would like to make a motion to allow the maximum 0.55 impervious surface ratio at 684 Smiley Avenue, with a gazebo size of no larger than 12’ X 14’.
Seconded by Mr. Danbury.

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments.)

Ms. Marie Gaddis: I live at 675 Cloverdale Avenue and I own a vacant lot that joins near, there is one lot between Ms. Snively and my lot. My question is, where is the water going to go when they drain their pool? Not across my lot, I hope.

Mr. Campion: When you drain a pool you are supposed to take the water to the street or to the storm drain.

Ms. Snively: The water drains to the street, there is a drain pipe put in to drain the water off the deck.

Ms. Gaddis: I don’t mean to dispute you but it is going across my lot.

Ms. Snively: There is no water coming out of the swimming pool.

Chairman Okum: Staff will review the layout of the pool and make sure the drainage for the pool is set up so it drains properly.

Mr. Emerson: Is there water in the pool right now?

Ms. Snively: Yes. It has been in the pool for the last year. It has not been drained or anything.

Chairman Okum: That is one of the concerns with impervious surface ratio, how the water runs off and how it impacts the adjoining properties. That will be added to the motion because if a variance is granted it will stay with that property forever, so that it is understood that off-flow of water shall not impair or affect the adjoining properties.

Mr. Reichert: I am going to make a motion to grant a variance for the impervious surface ratio of 0.55 to allow for construction of an accessory structure of a maximum size of 12’ X 14’ gazebo and that the off-flow of water from the improvements at
684 Smiley shall not affect the adjoining properties.

Mr. Campion: There is one point; what probably has happened there was always water flowing across your property and it probably came from the left and went to the right or vice-versa; what probably has happened because you put this pool and decking in you have flattened out an area and you are collecting water that falls on your lot and you are taking that to the street. So, in theory there is less water that you are contributing to it, but at the same time you have water that is coming from your neighbors uphill and because your lot is higher now, or level, that water in this 10’ area from the decking to the property line is flowing towards your neighbor and is probably being funneled and that is why the neighbor who spoke here wants a ditch across the back of the property to keep that off of her property.

Chairman Okum: The motion we have on the floor prohibits you from shedding more water onto your neighbor’s property, but it doesn’t make you accountable for water coming around your property from other sources.

Mr. Reichert: I did not originally make it part of the motion, but as it was stated that if you do drain it, it drains towards the street; whether that requires you to pump it there or whatever, but not drain toward the other properties. So, that is included in the motion.

Chairman Okum: That is the motion and we have a second by Mr. Danbury. Any further discussion on the motion?

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeal Members and with a unanimous 7-0 vote, the variance request was granted.

Chairman Okum: We are now going back to Item “A” on the agenda.    

A. The owner of 11840 Lawnview Avenue requests a variance to allow the elimination of the garage. Said variance is from Section 153.105(B)”A single two-car garage and related parking area is required…”

    (At this time Chairman Okum did swear in the applicant who was not present earlier in the meeting.)

    Mr. Kelly Phipps: I am requesting a variance for 11840 Lawnview Avenue. During the new rental inspection process it came up that the house I purchased in 1991 had a garage conversion by the prior residents without a variance. There is 263 s.f. of storage and 190 s.f. of the former garage converted to living space.

    Chairman Okum: The garage door still exists?

    Mr. Phipps: Yes. I still have a double driveway with room for four cars there.

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

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments; no one came forward.)

Mrs. Huber: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.105(B) so as to allow the continued use of a converted garage into 190 s.f. of living space and 263 s.f. of storage space with an operating garage door at the property located at 11840 Lawnview.
Seconded by Mr. Weidlich.

Mr. Reichert: Is there a window in the garage?

Mr. Phipps: In the garage door only.

Mr. Reichert: Do you know what the living space is used for?

Mr. Phipps: It has been used as a second living space and a bedroom; there are french doors that exit to the back yard so there is a good exit.

Mr. Reichert: Is there a door from the garage converted living space to the garage converted storage space?

Mr. Phipps: No.

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with a unanimous 7-0 vote the variance request for 11840 Lawnview Avenue was granted.


Mr. Danbury: Bill, would you tell us about “Fishing That Has No Boundaries”?

Mr. Reichert: I have been involved with this for 14 years and I have quite a few sponsors from Springdale who support this, the Lyons Club and other groups and organizations that help every year. We take people with disabilities fishing for a weekend. We ask for two person teams, and as of today it is the largest group I have ever had. We catch fish, even little fish; it doesn’t take a certain size fish to get people excited. We have pontoons for the wheelchairs and they get out and enjoy. The participants are fed and they get a hat and shirt and a gold medallion and some door prizes, things of that nature.

Mr. Emerson: Are you looking for volunteers?

Mr. Reichert: If you are interested, please come out and visit with us and see what is going on. We would love to have you out there.

Chairman Okum: It is amazing, I got involved about 6 or 7 years ago and it is an unbelievable event; you can’t believe the smiles on the faces of the participants.

Mr. Diehl: What is the budget for something like that?

Mr. Reichert: My budget this year is $14,000. It was a little tougher this year, the donations have been cut down a bit than they have been in the past years, but we planned for it.


Chairman Okum: So, with that, I’ll accept a motion for adjournment.

Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and Mr. Emerson seconded the motion, the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2009 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum

________________________,2009 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber