BOARD OF ZONING MEETING
MAY 20, 2008
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Okum.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Mr. Emerson, Mr. Diehl, Mr. Danbury, Mr. Weidlich,
Chairman Okum, Mrs. Huber, Mr. Reichert
Others Present: Mr. Campion, Inspection Supervisor,
Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 15 APRIL 2008
Mrs. Huber moved to approve the Board of Zoning Meeting Minutes as submitted from April
15, 2008, Mr. Danbury seconded the motion, all Board of Zoning Members voted aye and the
Minutes were adopted.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2008
b. Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2008
c. Updated BZA Contact List
d. Ordinance Number 16-2008
VI. REPORT ON COUNCIL
Mr. Danbury: reported concerning the Memorial Golf Outing on June 11, 2008.
At the last Council meeting we had one Ordinance and that was dealing with a contract for
fuel with BP. The meeting prior to that dealt with Ordinance #16 it deals with size
of structures based upon the size of a lot. Council also dealt with Ordinance #20 and #21.
All of these Ordinances passed with seven affirmative votes.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Chairman Okum reported that at the May 13th Planning Commission Meeting there was one item
on the agenda Modification of the Preliminary Plan for the Tri-County Commons. The
project was presented to us as Burbanks.
VIII. CHAIRMANS STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
IX. OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Okum reported no items of old business.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. 12065 GREENCASTLE NEW RESIDENCE
Chairman Okum: First item on the agenda is for approval of a variance to allow the owner
of 12065 Greencastle to construct a residence 22 from the rear property line. Said
variance is from Section 153.072 (A) Single household dwellings
shall have a minimum
rear yard setback of 40 feet.
Could a representative from the property please step forward and present your case.
(At this time the first item was deferred until later in the meeting as one of the
representatives had not arrived.)
B. 1079 LEDRO STREET FENCE POST TO REMAIN ON OUTSIDE
Chairman Okum: Approval of a variance to allow the owner of 1079 Ledro Street to keep the
fence posts to the outside of the fence located on the property. Said variance is
requested from Section 153.482(C)(4) All structural supports of any fence shall be
erected with supports on the inside of the area to be enclosed
Would the representative for the property please step forward.
Marianne Harper: Mills Fence was asked if they would take care of permits; they said
Yes. They did not take care of the permit. We just replaced the fence as it
was, with the posts outside.
Randy Campion read the Staff report: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the
supporting structure of her 6 foot privacy fence to remain on the outside of the
enclosure. Section 153.482 (C)(4) requires that the fence supports be erected on the
inside of the area to be enclosed.
The owner had the fence erected without a permit: Notice was sent by Gordon King, Building
Inspector, on March 11, 2008 advising her to obtain a permit.
Section 153.482 (C)(4) gives an alternative to the requirement for post location by
allowing the owner to obtain notarized statements from the adjacent property owners
attesting to their approval to the support location. The applicant has obtained such a
statement from the property owner to her west. On the east side, the adjacent property
owner has installed a finished side to her posts such that both sides are finished. The
applicant has not indicated if an attempt was made to obtain a notarized statement from
the neighbor to the south. Should a variance be granted, it would be for the fence on the
south property line only.
Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mrs. Huber moved to grant a variance from Section 153.482(C)(4) so as to allow the fence
posts to remain to the outside of the property located at 1079 Ledro Street, this would be
on the south property line only. Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.
Mr. Danbury: Many people say they didnt know that they needed a building permit, but
it is up to everybody to get a building permit; we give building permits on most
residential items for free and it is the responsibility of the homeowner.
We did approve her neighbor at 1081 Ledro for the same issues, so I dont have a
problem with it myself.
Chairman Okum: I will be supporting your request for a variance; I would prefer that
fences were double-sided.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a unanimous aye vote the variance was
granted.
C. 141 RUSKIN LANE PATIO COVER 5 FROM REAR LOT LINE
Chairman Okum: Next item on the agenda, approval of a setback variance to allow the owner
of 141 Ruskin Lane to erect a patio cover 5 from the rear lot line. Section
153.087(A) An
open but roofed porch may project
not more than 50% into a
required rear yard.
Could a representative from 141 Ruskin please step forward.
Mr. Donald W. Behymer: We are just trying to replace our falling down awning and we
requested a variance because our backyard is only 20 deep. The awning will be the
same size as the original and manufactured by Champion and it is not a do-it-yourself, it
is a $4,000. awning. It is just unfortunate that we do not have any back lot.
Mrs. Huber: How many feet is the back lot exactly?
Mr. Behymer: Twenty feet.
Mr. Campion read the Staff comments: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow him
to replace an existing patio roof with a 5 feet setback from the rear line. Section
153.580 (D) allows an open but roofed porch to project into a required rear yard by 50%.
The required rear yard for this Zoning District (RSH-M) is 40 feet per 153.087(A).
Therefore, the required setback to the patio roof is 20 feet.
The building on the property is legal non-conforming and only has rear yard depth of
approximately 20 feet. A variance would be necessary to construct any size patio roof.
Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mr. Weidlich: I would like to make a motion to approve an awning that will create a
5 setback from the rear property line at 141 Ruskin from Section 153.580(D) and
153.087(A) of our Zoning Code. Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.
Chairman Okum: Considering that your home is less than 20 from your rear property
line you would be in a hard position to try to put an awning anywhere else on your
property, at least on the rear of your property.
Mr. Behymer: It is 24 X 10. It only projects out 10 from the house.
Mr. Reichert: Does the fence run the whole property line in the back yard?
Mr. Behymer: No, sir.
Chairman Okum: Again, the Board has considered the factors in 153.710 of our Code.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a unanimous aye vote the variance was
granted.
A. 12065 GREENCASTLE NEW RESIDENCE
Chairman Okum: At this time we will bounce back to A, an approval of a
variance to allow the owner of 12065 Greencastle to construct a residence 22 from
the rear property line. Said variance is from Section 153.072(A) Single household
dwellings
shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.
Mr. Derrick Parham: I am the Assistant City Administrator at City of Springdale, where the
property owner for the property located at 12065 Greencastle Drive, approximately in 2005
the City purchased the property from the current owner and over the last two years we have
at various times placed the property out on the market to be sold. We have at this point
reached an agreement with Mr. Teague to sell the property, as part of that there are
stipulations placed on the buyer. The first part of the process when we placed it out for
bid is that the buyers would present to us a design, the City would then make a decision
as to whether we agree with that design or not, and if we did agree with that design we
would then proceed and open the financial part of the bid. If we did not agree with that
design we would not receive the financial part of that bid. In this particular case with
Mr. Teague, we found that the proposal that he submitted was appropriate for the site. I
believe you have a copy of the floor plan, the site plan and the square footage for the
home. The plan that he proposes is 3200 square feet and it is 38-3 deep on the
garage side of the property. As I understand the setback for the rear yard is 40,
there is currently a variance on the property that is 29.33, but based on the square
footage and the size of the home that he is proposing to construct he is in need of a
variance for a setback of 22. With that I would ask for the Boards approval.
Chairman Okum: There are conditions set in your contract for purchase?
Mr. Parham: Yes. There were two conditions; one is that the property owner or prospective
buyer would begin the construction of the property, I believe within a 12 month period
from the time of purchase. The other is that in trying to insure that the property would
remain as owner occupied and to resist that it turn into a rental property, that the owner
of the property would have to reside in the home a minimum of 5 years.
Randy Campion read the Staff report: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a
new single household residence on a corner lot with a 22 rear yard. Section
153.072(A) of the Zoning Code requires a 40 foot minimum rear yard.
The property was formerly occupied by a residence which has been demolished. A variance
was granted on April 20, 1976 to allow a 29 4 rear yard in order to
construct the prior residence. The prior residence was a split-level home of 1804 s.f. and
was 26 8 deep. The proposed residence is 3200 s.f. and is 38
3 deep on the garage side.
As with most corner lots the challenge is to provide 2 front yard setbacks, a required
rear yard and have adequate room left to build a structure of reasonable size. Such is the
case on this lot.
Should the Board choose to grant this variance it should be conditioned upon the
following:
1) The driveway shall be accessed from Harcourt Drive.
2) The front elevation shall have a brick finish.
3) The Harcourt Drive side elevation shall have a brick finish on at least 50% of the
surface.
4) The roof covering shall be dimensional asphalt shingles.
These conditions are part of the Citys conditions for sale of the property.
Shaun Teague, the planned purchaser of the property, arrived at the proceedings (after
being sworn in, stepped forward to comment). We do realize that the variances; the
property does have a short back yard, for the type of property and home that we need this
is necessary. This is our request.
Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mrs. Huber made a motion to grant a variance from Section 153.072 (A) so as to allow for a
rear yard to be 22 from property line. The property is located at 12065 Greencastle
Drive.
Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.
Chairman Okum: We do understand that it is a corner lot and that makes it very difficult
to achieve a balance and to place a dwelling on it. I do have a slight concern; I have had
the opportunity to look at the plan, The Somerset, it has the option of an opportunity to
put a sunroom on the home, because you are already in the setback area that would make it
very difficult to put that in there.
Mr. Teague: We have opted not to go with the sunroom just for the various facts that you
just mentioned.
Chairman Okum: The other option would be to reconfigure you fireplace in your family room
and have something with that 55 on that other side, and maybe utilize that other
side of the house; at a later time if you decided to. And I would make that suggestion to
you now because I dont want to have to see you back in here in a year and a half
when you decide you want to have that sunroom back off the back of the house.
Mr. Teague: That would be great.
Chairman Okum: Staff has recommended that there are four conditions be added, which tie to
your agreement.
Mr. Emerson: If your garage is going out to Harcourt, what is going to take the place of
the garage door from the front, is there any plans to put windows in there?
Mr. Teague: There will be two windows on the side.
The builder and I actually had concern with the garage facing Harcourt, will we still have
the Greencastle address?
Mr. Campion: Usually it is the front door, the way the door faces.
Mr. Reichert: I make a motion to amend to include the four points, as recommended by Staff
as part of the variance.
Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board on the amendment and with a unanimous aye vote the
motion was accepted.
Mrs. Huber then polled the Board on the motion as amended, and with a unanimous
aye vote the requested variance as amended was granted.
C. 762 TIVOLI LANE TO PLACE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CLOSER THAN 5 FROM THE
REAR AND SIDE LOT LINES
Chairman Okum: The owner of 762 Tivoli Lane is requesting a variance to place an accessory
structure closer than 5 from the rear and side lot lines; said variance is requested
from Section 153.097(B)(4) All structures
must be not less than 5 from
any rear or side lot lines.
Would the representative for the property please step forward.
Mr. Carrender: I live in Sharonville, this is rental property in Springdale. Previously I
had a shed, it was an eye sore so I tore it down and I have checked where I want to put
the shed and there has been a brick and stone patio under a good portion of where this
shed would sit. I have checked around and I can put crushed limestone in the rest of the
area up to the fence corners and all around the perimeter of the shed.
Mr. Okum: So I clearly understand this, is your request to place the shed the 2 from
the fence or 2 from your property line?
Mr. Carrender: From the fence. The fence has been there ever since I owned the property,
which has probably 20 years and I bought the property at a foreclosure, but I took the
shed down, I dont know three or four years ago and when I got a new tenant a few
months ago they want more storage space because they come from a big house and they have
got the garage full of boxes and they want storage space. Plus, I need to leave a couple
things there myself like ladders and lawnmowers for in between tenants. But by putting
this crushed rock around the outer perimeter of the existing patio there is no way that
there would be any grass growing up because I have already checked it out and the Amish
people they did four inches deep and put the crushed rock and they tell me that you never
see anything growing through it.
Randy Campion read the Staff comments: The applicant is requesting to erect a 10 X
12 utility building 2 feet from the side and rear lot lines. Section 153.097 (B)(4)
requires that all accessory structures be not less than 5 feet from the rear and side lot
lines.
The applicant has not presented an unusual circumstance about his property which makes it
impractical to locate the structure 5 feet from the lot line.
The applicant requested this same variance at the April 15, 2008 meeting. The request was
not approved with a vote of 3 to 3. Much of the discussion at this meeting was related to
the location of the property lines. Nothing has been submitted to clarify this issue.
I just want to add that I went out to the site and took the picture before you and the
last picture and second to last picture are the Cagis fly-over and it shows the property
line and then it shows some bushes and this is just my opinion, because we havent
had it surveyed, but it looks like when they set the fence up around the pool, it looks
like the property line was the bushes. The front corner of the fence that faces the street
is on the property line is over about 4 to miss the bushes, so it looks like
I drew a dotted line where I think the property line is, without having it surveyed
but it looks like the bushes are the property line, and not the fence. It is our policy
that we dont do surveys and we take the fence as the property line, so without a
survey if we went to that location we would measure 5 off the existing fence, but it
is my opinion that the bushes are actually the property line.
Chairman Okum: I appreciate those observations, I too had that same consideration that if
we would allow the 2 setback from the fence, literally if there were a survey done
based upon Cagis, this shed would be sitting on his neighbors property and that
would be alarming and therefore I am having a hard time supporting placing it on the
property line or even close to the property line, that is one of the reasons that you have
a 5, for variance for adjustments so that you can deal with situations and you can
get behind them and maintain them.
Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mr. Weidlich made a motion to approve the setback of 2 from the rear and side
property lines at 762 Tivoli Lane. These are relative to our Code, Section 153.097(B)(4)
that requires a 5 setback from rear and side property lines.
Mr. Danbury seconded the motion.
Chairman Okum: Mr. Weidlich, just for purposes of understanding, you said specifically
from the property line, not the fence line?
Mr. Weidlich: Yes.
Chairman Okum: Does everyone understand that conditions can be placed on a variance that
can require a survey be done by the applicant? If that is the motion that comes forward, I
would probably support a 2 setback from the surveyed property line; but I would not
support possibly placing that shed on the property line. So, Mr. Weidlich is strictly for
the property and if we do want to add conditions, we can.
I am suggesting to the Board that if you want to put your shed 2 off the property
line that there would be a condition set that you would be permitted to do that but it
would be requiring you to get a survey of the property stating and establishing where your
property line truly is. Then you could submit that to the City and the City can approve
the shed 2 off that property line. That is what Mr. Weidlich has made the motion
for. He has disregarded the issue of where the fence is at. Mr. Campion has stated that in
his report that is it highly probable that the fence has been jogged around the bushes and
your property line is not truly where you think it is; but that is up to you. If you want
us to carry it forward to a vote, we will, but I think that would be the prudent thing for
this Board to do considering there is clearly a variable in where that property line is in
the fence and it would be inappropriate for us to allow a shed or any structure be placed
on the property line or someone elses property.
Mr. Reichert: In your picture, where the shed is located, it is sort of like on an angle
45 in the corner, is that your intention, or is it going to be square?
Mr. Carrender: No, it is going to be square.
Mr. Reichert: It is going to be parallel to the side?
Mr. Carrender: Right. Those fences have been there ever since I have owned the property.
It was erected it was the old one came down and the new one was put up within the
past three years and I have talked with and got a statement from the people in the east
and they said everything is good and put it against the fence if I want to. The other
people said, No problem with them, but I didnt get their statement
because they have been on vacation. Now hypothetically, lets say that the survey
says that the fence is over on my property and not the other property. I am not going to
ask them to take that fence down.
Chairman Okum: You wouldnt have to, sir, I think the City would. But, I think the
situation
Mr. Carrender: You mean to tell me that the City would ask someone to take down a fence
that has been there for twenty years?
Mr. Campion: I dont know that we would in practicality unless somebody complained
about it.
Mr. Carrender: Within ten doors of where I live I can take a picture of a building this
side that is within 1 of the fence, not 2, within ten doors from where I am
asking.
Chairman Okum: Yes, sir. We will go and see what the other Board Members have to say.
Mr. Emerson: Mr. Carrender, I think my question would be is if my neighbor built a fence
and it wound up being on my yard or on my property, ten years down the road when the fence
is falling apart, the City comes to me because it is on my property that makes it my
fence, and I think that would have to be the answer to your question, if your neighbor
wound up building a fence on your property, the City comes to you because it is falling
apart and you say, Well, that is my neighbors fence, he is the one who built
it; well, but then they are going to hold you responsible.
Mr. Carrender: He built it before I owned the property.
Mr. Emerson: No, I understand that. But I am saying and I am playing the devils
advocate on the other side, if you put your barn up and it winds up being on your
neighbors property, it would be pretty expensive tearing that barn down and having
to move it 3 or 4 to the other side.
Mr. Carrender: No, this gentleman right here explained that you can roll them over; in
other words, people all the time, I am sure you guys know they roll these barns around and
put them where they want them.
Mr. Emerson: If it were my barn and my property, I would want to know if it was sitting on
my property, that is my personal opinion.
Mr. Carrender: Well, I think it is a waste of money to spend a few hundred bucks to get a
survey, when I really dont care where the line is at. Quite frankly, I dont
care.
Chairman Okum: We are dealing with it legally and we are the Board that has to pass or
deny a variance. That variance stays with the property and it represents property rights
for all the residents, not only you, sir. It doesnt only include the people that
live next to you or live next to that property, it includes the people that will live
there 10, 20, 30 years from now, so what we do today stays with the property. So, when we
are imposing a variance we are affecting property rights of the adjoining property owners,
as well as yours, sir. And that is the reason that this hearing is heard and that is the
reason that there is a judicial, fair system to allow testimony and allow presentation of
evidence in these proceedings. It may not be something you like, but it is something that
is legally proper and it is required, so this is not simple and it is very difficult for
us. We are all residents of this community. This is truly the hardest Board to sit on. It
would be a lot easier to say that anybody can do anything they want on all of their
property, but that does not give fair rights to all the residents of the community, and
that is the reason that this Board has been established.
Mr. Carrender: O.K. The position I am in, my tenant, I told her that I have to move it
out; she said that takes up yard space that I want, and she said that you are saying that
they wont do it within 2? And go down the street, 10 doors and they have got
one within one foot, now.
Chairman Okum: I cant state what is right and what is wrong, I can tell you that
what is right is that if this Board decides to allow a variance of 2 instead of
5 from the legal property line, then that would be the variance. That is giving a
3 variance from our Code; our Code requires 5.
Mr. Danbury: You look at me and there are problems all over, and I dont like seeing
people incur costs that they dont need to incur and that is why Mr. Okum made the
motion that you get a survey. If you were to build this and if your immediate neighbor
were to tear down the fence, and he wants to sell it for whatever reason, he or she wants
to have it surveyed and if you were to build it partly on their property then you are
going to have to move it. It is just like if you have a tree in your yard and all of a
sudden all of the branches go in my side, I have a right to cut that off. You may have a
neighbor that doesnt like it and they may take a saw and go right down the middle
and say, I want to get rid of this, it is on my property. If you were to get
it surveyed it would take care of everything, or if you just want to go without this,
because you are looking at investing $2,100. instead of going for a variance of 2
just move it over 3.
Mr. Carrender: It is more that $2,100. because now I am going to stain it exactly like the
fence, the neighbor next door is going to do it and the patio that is sitting under it, I
am going to extend all around the perimeter, like this, with the crushed rock 4 deep
so you dont have a grass problem.
Mr. Danbury: As I stated at our last meeting, I was in favor of at least giving this to
you, as long as there is a stipulation that you did put crushed rock or something that
would not allow grass to come in, but Chairman did bring up a very valid point in that we
dont know for sure and the pictures appear that this is not the actual property
line.
Mr. Carrender: As I have stated, if all this happens further down the road, all you do is
put rollers under it and roll it over. But, I am hard pressed to believe that I am not on
their property line because Dusty Rhode sent me 77 X 212. I measured the front
of 77 and if I start at the fence one side, those people are over on my property
with a privacy fence. Then when I get back to the back of the lot, it is 12 more
narrow cause it went on an angle than the front, so if they come over 12 and I have
the only house facing that street on that entire block. Now you would think that those two
streets wouldnt be running together and they gave all the property to the other two
people you would think that mine would be closer than 12 difference from
front to back.
Chairman Okum: We understand, sir. And you are entitled to do what you are entitled to do
and it is up to this Board to deliberate and make a decision. Just for the record, you do
have an irregular lot, it is wider in the front and narrower in the back.
Mr. Carrender: It does not say that.
Chairman Okum: It shows that on Cagis; all I can do is go by what Cagis shows on the
drawings, I do not have the Auditors report, but I believe that it calls for an
irregular lot, is that right, Mr. Campion?
Mr. Campion: Cagis says that it is 58.98 in the back.
Mr. Carrender: What does it say the front is?
Mr. Campion: That is the only measurement I didnt right down, the front is bigger
than the back.
Chairman Okum: I thought the front was 70 something and 776 faces Tivoli, as
well.
Mr. Carrender: It is the only house on the block that faces that street.
Chairman Okum: You are incorrect; my mother-in-law owned 776 for over 20 years and 776
faces the same way as that house.
Mr. Carrender: Opposite side of the street.
Chairman Okum: No, sir.
Mr. Carrender: I tell you what buddy, you have got some wires crossed because that house
faces Tivoli, Barb and Tom face Crescentville, and the other house faces Ledro.
Chairman Okum: Then I went to the wrong house for 20 years.
Mr. Carrender: Who went and looked at the house?
Mr. Campion: I did.
Mr. Emerson: Are we set that the back line is true?
Chairman Okum: We are not set on any of this.
Mr. Campion: According to Cagis the back line appears to be the true property line. I
think the back page of that hand-out shows the aerial photo and a drawn line.
Chairman Okum: At this time, the Board is going to consider your request.
Frankly, I dont see the applicants willingness to do a survey so I will find
it of futility to incorporate that into the motion or to amend the motion, so my
suggestion to have a survey done we gave that opportunity and I dont believe
that that would be accepted, so we are based on the motion as requested, I have stated my
position that without a survey there is no way of knowing where that shed would be placed
and to place the shed on someone elses property, I believe is not in the interest of
the future property owners that join those properties.
Mr. Diehl: Thank you; I have a question for the Chair, in the event that we gave them this
variance and the shed turned out to be on somebody elses property based on a survey,
what happens to that shed at that time?
Chairman Okum: The next door neighbor, if they decided to act on it, would have to go to
the Court and request action be taken on their behalf, they would incur costs to
accomplish that, I believe.
Mr. Campion: You would also be granting a variance for a shed to be put there.
Chairman Okum: And we would have a variance on the record that we granted a variance...
no, not necessarily, because the motion was strictly to allow the shed to be 2 from
the property line. So the motion was specific, it wasnt to the fence line, it was to
the property line and that would hold, so it would be up to the neighbor next door to
exercise their rights. And the only way that those could be exercised, I believe is to
action of court.
Mr. Emerson: Concerning this, Mr. Campion if you were going to do a professional opinion,
looking at this, how far off would you say the fence is from where you think the property
line is in the back?
Mr. Campion: It looked like it scaled out, the fence is about 3. Sir, would you say
that the fence is about 3 from the bushes?
Mr. Carrender: As a matter of fact, I trimmed the bushes yesterday. They were against the
fence and I cut them back about 2. But, as far as moving it, if someone would
complain
it is just like the fence that is there, I would never ask those people to
move the fence if I surveyed it. I would complain if the City wanted them to move it. So,
I think that this is literally nonsense, and weve got enough of that to go around.
Mr. Emerson: I was just wondering and would be almost half tempted to support 5 off
the north fence and 2 off the back fence.
Mr. Campion: Our policy, since we dont survey things, is to go 5 off the
fence. So if he put his shed 5 off the existing fence, without a survey we would
have to say that that is o.k.
Mr. Emerson: I was saying 5 off the north fence and then it would need a variance
for the 2 off the back fence so he could utilize most of his yard.
Mr. Campion: And, based on my educated guess, I would say that 5 is probably 2
or 3 off the property line.
Chairman Okum: Staff has indicated that they would base their decision on placement of the
shed as the fence, not the property line; so by essence if you were to grant the variance
you would be placing the shed closer to the fence and possibly on the property line.
Mr. Emerson: If we take the fence as the property line, do we put it in and word it that
way?
Chairman Okum: Yes, but Im not quite sure the applicant has shown a steadfastness
through the discussion that he is insistent on 2 setback from the fence. Unless the
applicant has changed his mind it would be inappropriate for us to say this is where you
have to put it unless he agrees to placing it there, otherwise it is a fruitless motion
and its a variance that has not even been accepted by the applicant. It is not part
of the applicants request. You are altering his requested variance by doing it that
way.
Mr. Campion: If I could ask something of the applicant, are you suggesting, if you say the
fence is 3 from the bushes and you want 2 and you want the shed to be 2
from the fence, does that mean you are going to cut the bushes down?
Mr. Carrender: The bushes, if you are out there, they do not go back to that fence.
Did you see the construction I have been doing back there to get Brother Danburys
wishes I already have crushed gravel back there. Now if I have to sit this someplace else,
I can put up a $300. shed that will rust out in about a year or two and then you have an
eye-sore; and I am buying a $2000. shed that is going to make the place look good and it
has a 40 year warranty.
So do you want the place to look good, or do you want it to look good for a year or two
and then have a rust bin back there which I just took out 2 or 3 years ago. Those old
metal sheds rust and regardless, if anyone wants to go inside that house and you have one
that looks any better youve got a nice one. Because all the bathrooms the
kitchen, everything is updated.
Chairman Okum: We have to deal with property rights and that is where it becomes very
difficult. Without a survey on this property we have to base it upon what staff sees.
Staff has clearly stated in their report that your fence and the property line based upon
what Cagis provides to us, and Cagis is an aerial survey that was done that shows the
property lines overlaying the land and the homes throughout Hamilton County and that
survey shows where your property line is, that is in conflict with where your
neighbors fence is. So, when we are talking property rights we are talking the
rights of the neighbors. Not this neighbor, not tomorrow, and I appreciate what you want
to do with your property, but you are not going to be the owner is 20, 30 years. And those
rights have to be carried forward because this is not a temporary situation; this is a
permanent situation when we deal with a variance. And that is the reason that I have
stated to you several times that it is permanent, it is not short term and although
youre willingness to move the shed doesnt eliminate our obligation to allow
the
placement of a shed on somebody elses property. If it is potentially on somebody
elses property, it is not in our rights to do that.
We would be more than willing to open this up again, if you want to carry this forward and
have us not vote on it this evening we will be happy to not vote on it this evening
and give you an opportunity to prove different.
Mr. Carrender: I am not going to waste money if I have a survey that is meaningless.
I am not going to ask anyone to move their fence because I find out that they put it on my
property.
Chairman Okum: That is not what I said, sir and that is not correct. What I said to you
was, if that fence is truly your property line then I would not have a problem with the
2 from the fence. My concern is that the fence is not your property line. We have
two points of evidence that were presented to us by staff and that is photos aerial
drawings and Cagis;
the Cagis drawing showing the property lines. That is where the confusion is. You are the
applicant, you need to present evidence to us why you need to be able to justify why you
need that shed that close to your property line. So far I havent heard any reason
why that shed should not be 5 from your property line, but I would be willing to
even grant the extra 3.
Mr. Carrender: Because it is a small yard and the tenant needs all the space they can get,
plus they need storage space.
Mr. Diehl: A comment, on behalf of the City we always are looking for good landlords and
you are certainly one of them and we thank you for that. Based on the motion that we are
going to tie this to the property line, I happen to be going to vote in favor of this,
only that if the property line determined in the future tomorrow or ten years from
now that it does meet someone is going to have to take this shed down or move it.
Mr. Emerson: Mr. Diehl, what we have run into in the past on this Board is that somebody
put up a fence and then they move and they wind up the fence is in violation and then the
new owner comes in front of us and they are like hey, I just bought the house and
the fence was already there. They are looking at the expense of having to have the
fence moved or the barn moved because it was put up in violation. If we vote this barn in
2 off the property line and that is the wording 2 off the property
line, he goes moves or sells the property and then the neighbor finds out that it is
only a foot or it is in the neighbors yard, then they are going to be back here in
front of us again wanting us to have a variance for a 1 off the property line, or to
not move the shed. We dont know where the property line is.
Mr. Reichert: I too think that the fence is on your neighbors property, not on the
line inside his property. He may have it 2 from the property line, which is his
right to do that, he doesnt have to put it on the property line. He could move it
5 from the property line and put up a fence, not knowing exactly where that is, I
dont think I can support 2 from the fence, at all. My suggestion last time was
to move it 5 from there.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a 6-no and 1-aye vote the request for a variance was
denied.
D. 207 DISTON TO PLACE THE STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS ON THE OUTSIDE OF FENCE ENCLOSURE
Chairman Okum: The variance is requested form Section 153.482(C)(4) so as to allow the
structural supports of a fence to be located on the outside of a fence enclosure.
Would a representative please step forward.
Mrs. Popplewell: I want to replace an existing privacy fence on the rear and east side of
the property and extend the fence on the east side to the corner of my yard; and I gave
you a letter from my next door neighbor, Gene Berger, I didnt have it notarized. I
also brought a letter from the neighbor on the other side of me and it is notarized.
My daughter, Sheri D. Harvey, who is here tonight, is the owner of the property.
Chairman Okum: Letters have been submitted from neighbors at 211 Diston and 11705
Lawnview.
Mr. Campion read the Staff report: The applicant is requesting to replace an existing
privacy fence on the rear and east side of the property and extend the fence on the east
side. Section 153.482(C)(4) requires that the fence supports be erected on the inside of
the area to be enclosed. The owner has not indicated any difficulty that makes it
impractical to install the fence in conformance with the code. The owner has indicated
that the installation will occur with the permission of the neighbors. Section 153.482
(C)(4) provides an alternative to the required post location by obtaining a notarized
statement from the adjacent property owners attesting to the approval of the support
location. If the applicant is proposing to obtain such statements, then a variance is not
necessary. The applicant submitted such a statement from her neighbor to the east, but it
is not notarized. This evening the applicant submitted a statement from the property on
the south-(notarized) and east-(signed) side of 207 Diston Lane.
Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mrs. Huber: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.482(C)(4) so as to allow the
structural supports of a fence to be located on the outside of the fence enclosure at 207
Diston
Mr. Danbury: I second the motion.
Mr. Diehl: Are you taking the whole fence down and putting up a new fence?
Mrs. Popplewell: Yes
Mr. Diehl: Are you taking the poles down, too?
Mrs. Popplewell: I am not sure they are in concrete.
Mr. Diehl: Is there any reason why you cant put the fence on the other side and have
the poles facing in?
Mrs. Popplewell: There isnt room. It is too close to the chain-link fence.
Chairman Okum: You are adding about 40 of new 8 sheets of new fence. So, you
are going to utilize the old post. So would you say that about 1/3 of the fence will be
new?
And you indicated that there would be a hardship of fitting a finished face on the fence
because there is a chain-link fence prohibiting that.
Mrs. Popplewell: I hate to take the chain-link fence down because it is new.
I will have the wood fence stained before I put it up.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a 6-aye and 1-no vote the request for a variance was
granted.
E. 881 E. CRESCENTVILLE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE 246 FROM THE
STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINE
Chairman Okum: Approval of a variance to allow the owner to construct a new residence
246 from the street right of way line, said variance is from Section
153.100(A) Single household dwellings
shall have a minimum front yard setback
of 30 feet.
Scott Madden 8920 Montgomery Road, Cincinnati stepped forward to represent the owner. I am
a friend of the Finlaws and the house burned down and we would like to rebuild and
bump it closer, maybe 6 to the street to get a bigger garage.
Chairman Okum: Are you going to build on the existing slab?
Scott Madden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Campion read the Staff report: The applicant is requesting to construct a new
residence with a 24-6 front yard setback from the right of way on E.
Crescentville. Section 153.100 (A) requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. The
right of way line is 27.5 feet from the curb on Crescentville. This is 15 feet larger than
most subdivision streets. There was a residence on the property previously which was
demolished after a fire. The previous structure was set back 30.5 feet in compliance with
the Zoning Code. The applicant is proposing to construct the garage 6 feet further
forward. The applicant has not indicated that there are any unusual characteristics about
the property which make it impractical to comply with the code. There is sufficient room
to expand to the rear of the lot. The rear yard setback requirement is 35 feet. The prior
residence appears to be approximately 47 feet from the rear lot line.
Scott Madden: It will look nicer than a square box.
Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mr. Reichert: I make a motion from Section 153.100 (A) so that the resident at 881 E.
Crescentville Road may construct a resident with a 246 front yard setback from
the right of way.
Mr. Emerson: I second the motion
Are you using the same slab, the same type home?
Scott Madden: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: If you bring the garage out further, you have a unique situation in the fact
that the public right of way is really in the middle of your front yard because
Crescentville Road was never expanded to the width that it was potentially going to.
Mr. Danbury: The fact that there arent any two car garage units unless you go down
to Pilgrim, so this would be unique. I think it will be a good addition to the community.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a unanimous 7 aye vote the request for the variance
was granted.
XI. DISCUSSION
There were no items of discussion.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and the Board of Zoning adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________,2008 ___________________________________
Vice Chairman Mr. Weidlich
________________________,2008 ___________________________________
Secretary Jane Huber