BOARD OF ZONING MEETING
JUNE 17, 2008
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Weidlich.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Mr. Emerson, Mr. Diehl, Mr. Danbury, Mr. Weidlich,
Mrs. Huber, Mr. Reichert
Members Absent: Chairman Okum
Others Present: Mr. Campion, Inspection Supervisor and
Mr. Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 20 MAY, 2008
Mrs. Huber moved to approve the Board of Zoning Meeting Minutes as submitted from May 20,
2008, Mr. Danbury seconded the motion, all Board of Zoning Members voted aye and the
Minutes were adopted.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Zoning Bulletin – May 25, 2008
B. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2008
C. Approved Planning Minutes – May 13, 2008
VI. REPORT ON COUNCIL
Mr. Danbury: reported that the Memorial Golf Outing on June 11, 2008 was a success.
There were two items at the last Council Meeting: Approval of a Major Modification at the
PUD – Crossings at the Park. The other item was an agreement between the Mayor and
Clerk of Council with Hamilton County for housing and community development; this was a
three year deal.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
(There was no Planning Commission Report presented.)
VIII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
IX. OLD BUSINESS
Vice-Chairman Weidlich reported that there were no items of old business.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. 12065 GREENCASTLE – SETBACK VARIANCE FOR NEW RESIDENCE
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: An approval of a variance to allow the owner of 12065 Greencastle
to construct a residence 19’ 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. Jeff Tulloch: I am representing the City of Springdale, 11700 Springfield Pike; at the
last meeting we approved a variance of a 22’ set back for the new residence at 12065
Greencastle Drive. After that meeting we found out that the dimensions of the lot that
were provided by the builder were inaccurate and quite candidly I should have scaled it
off and caught the difference. It really requires a rear yard setback variance of 19’
versus the 22’ that was previously approved.
(At this point, Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)
Vice-Chairman Weidlich opened the floor to the audience for discussion.
Monnie Stokes from 691 Harcourt Drive stepped forward: My side yard is behind the back
yard for the proposed building of this home. I realize that the previous home that was
there was 29’ from our side and that was too close. I am opposed to the 19’ from
our house because that would change the appearance of the houses that are already there;
it will not be in conjunction with the existing homes that are already there and it will
be entirely too close to our property. We are the original owners of our property and
should we decide to sell our property I think it would be a negative for the sale of our
property because it would just be entirely too close.
No one else stepped forward to speak from the audience; Vice-Chairman Weidlich closed the
floor for audience discussion.
Mrs. Huber made a motion to grant a variance from Section 153.072(A) so as to allow for a
19’ rear yard set back at 12065 Greencastle Drive.
Mr. Danbury seconded the motion.
Mr. Diehl: Mr. Tulloch, originally what was the requested setback at the time when the
City put the condition on for sale?
Mr. Tulloch: The setback was to permit the construction of their residence and I think it
may have specified 22’. I believe the setback variance on the previous home was
29’.
Mr. Emerson: Is there any chance of moving the house closer to the street in the front?
Mr. Tulloch: Yes. It would alter the alignment of the houses along Greencastle. My
personal opinion, a difference of 3’ I don’t think would be that great of an
imposition on the aesthetics of the street. That would stay at a 22’ variance for the
rear yard and it would make a need for a setback variance of the front yard of 32’.
Mr. Danbury: If they were to move it up a little bit would that affect the curb?
Mr. Tulloch: It would alter it somewhat I do not think it will be negative.
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: For the record, the applicant is requesting that the variance
application be changed so that the 22’ rear yard setback stands and amend it to a
32’ setback for the front yard.
Mr. Danbury: I would like to make a motion that we amend this application for the
applicant at 12065 Greencastle to maintain the present 22’ rear setback to a 32’
front yard setback.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Reichert.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board on the amendment to the motion and with a 6-0 vote the
amendment to the motion was approved.
Mrs. Huber then polled the Board for the original motion and with a 6-0 vote the request
for the variance for the 22’rear yard setback and 32’ front yard setback was
granted.
B. 12152 AUDIE COURT – TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO PLACE A 10’ X 12’ UTILITY
BUILDING 0’ FROM THE SIDE (SOUTH) AND REAR
PROPERTY LINES
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: The owner of 12152 Audie Court is requesting a variance to place a
utility building 0’ from the side (south) and rear property 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.
Keith Eynden: When I purchased the house in 1993 there was a wooden shed at the south
corner of the back yard. In 2003 I removed that shed but left the concrete pad there and
built another shed at the north corner of the back yard. In December of this year a tree
fell on that new shed and destroyed it, so I decided that I would like to move the new
shed to that original concrete pad that already existed there. It is less than 2’
from a fence and I guess from the aerial photos it is right on the property line, but I
wanted to move it back to that fence because the back of the property is lined by mature
trees and that is the spot in the yard that has the lowest threat of another tree falling
on it.
Randy Campion read the Staff comments on this property.
Vice-Chairman Weidlich opened the floor to the audience for discussion. No one from the
audience stepped forward.
Mr. Reichert: I would like to make a motion to grant a variance from Section 153.097(B)(4)
so as to permit a 10 X 12 utility shed to be built within a 2’ rear and side property
line.
Mr. Emerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Diehl: Can you tell us what is directly behind your property?
Mr. Eynden: Yes there is actually a parking lot for a church.
Mr. Diehl: What is on the side where the shed would be located?
Mr. Eynden: There is another neighbor, and there is a fence about 2’ from the slab
and there is actually another shed.
Mrs. Huber: Sir, with your diagram that you submitted with your application, the shed is
10’X 8’ on the drawings someone has put the 10’X 12’ what is your
desire as to the size of this?
Mr. Eyden: My desire is a 10’ X 8’. The slab itself is 10.1' X 12.1 ½ '. The
slab is bigger than the building.
Mr. Emerson: The slab is 2’ bigger than the shed, if you turn the shed around
sideways and face it north; it buys you 2’ behind the shed on the property line and
also on the rear. Would you have a problem with that?
Mr. Eyden: The only problem I would have with that is that there is a line of honeysuckle
that I would have to remove, but it could probably be done.
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: Would you be in agreement to turning your shed 90 degrees?
Mr. Eyden: Yes, I think I would be.
Vice- Chairman Weidlich: So that would get you 3’ or 4’ from the fence line?
Mr. Eyden: Yes. It would probably be 4’ from the fence line.
Mr. Emerson: I would like to make an amendment to the motion that the applicant will turn
the shed 90 degrees facing north to accommodate a 2’ clearing on the south property
line and 3’ on the east property line.
Mr. Danbury seconded the motion.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board on the amended motion and with a 6-0 vote the amendment to the
request was approved.
Mrs. Huber then polled the Board and with a 6-0 vote the request for the variance was
granted.
C. 11490 WHALLON COURT – TO ALLOW A HOT TUB/SPA TO REMAIN 8’ FROM THE SIDE AND
NORTH PROPERTY LINE
Vice- Chairman Weidlich: The variance is requested form Section 153.488(C)(1) “Pools
and other recreational facilities shall be located not less than 15 feet from the rear and
side lot lines.”
Would a representative for the property please step forward.
Julie Wright and James Wright, owners of 11490 Whallon Court stepped forward.
Mr. Wright: I called in and asked about the permit for a used hot tub and they told me as
long as I was 5’ off the fence that I was o.k. to put it there. I waited a couple
days and my wife came over to put in the permit and she called me on the phone and asked
me where I was going to be putting the hot tub. I told her 8’ to 10’ away from
the fence and 8’ to 10’ away from the house. A few days after that I started
moving the hot tub where I needed to have it, got it all set in place and I wanted to hook
it all up to see if it worked – I had cut all the electric already and then I get the
permit a couple days later and they had crossed out the 7’ to 8’ and put in
15’ minimum. If I have to move it I will have to buy more electric for it and re-do
the electric.
Mr. Campion read the Staff report.
Vice-Chairman Weidlich opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mrs. Reichert: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.488(C)(1) so as to allow a hot
tub/spa to remain at 8’ from the side property line.
Mr. Emerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Emerson: When I drove by the house I didn’t see anything back there –
visible from the front. Is there a deck associated with the hot tub?
Mr. Wright: No. It is sitting right on the ground.
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a 6-0 vote the request for the variance was granted.
D. 11805 LAWNVIEW – TO PLACE A 12’ X 14’ UTILITY BUILDING 3’ FROM THE
SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: Approval of a variance to allow the owner to place a 12’ X
14’ utility building 3’ from the side and rear lot lines, the proposed location
is also less than 20’ from the residence to the north. Said variance is from Section
153.097(B)(4) “accessory structures shall not be located less than 5’ from the
rear and side lot line and shall be located not less than 20’ from a dwelling on an
adjacent lot.” Section 153.492(B) requires that accessory building floor area not
exceed 2% of the lot area or 12% of the dwelling area whichever is less. The lot area is
8506 s.f. which allows a maximum accessory structure of 170 s.f. The dwelling size is 1026
s.f. which allows for a maximum accessory structure of 120 s.f. Therefore 120 s.f. is the
maximum permitted size.
Would a representative for the property please step forward.
Wayne Moore owner of 11805 Lawnview: I live at 11805 Lawnview at the corner of Ruskin, the
proposal to put the utility building up behind the house and up against the building
– there is no back yard, something like 15’ of back yard and I couldn’t see
putting a shed there because I think it would cover up my bedroom window. I need the extra
storage space.
The way I would want it to sit is sideways facing Ruskin; that would put it about 10’
from the house.
Mr. Campion read the Staff report:
Vice-Chairman Weidlich opened the floor to the audience and no one stepped forward.
Mr. Emerson: I make a motion that we approve a variance for the owner of 11805 Lawnview
Avenue for the installation of a 12’ X 14’ utility building, 3’ from the
side and rear lot lines; located 20’ from the residence to the north referenced from
Section 153.097(B)(4) requires that all accessory structures be located not less than
5’ from the side and rear lot lines.
Mr. Danbury: I second the motion
Mr. Danbury: Why do you want to come in with a 12’ X 14’ request? Most people
coming in here request either an 8’ X 12’ or a 10’ X 12’ utility
building. I was wondering why you feel it is necessary to have something this large?
Mr. Moore: It is just the lack of storage space. An 8’ X 10’ would be fine, if
that is all they allow.
Mr. Danbury: A 12’ X 14’ shed, I cannot support it for a lot that size.
Mr. Moore: A 10’ X 12’ would be fine.
Mr. Reichert: I, too, could not support a 12’ X 14’ building. My other concern
is how close it is to the neighbor’s house. I notice the person behind you has a shed
on the other side of the fence, is that where you want to locate your shed?
Mr. Moore: Yes, back in that corner.
Mr. Reichert: My thought is that maybe we should go at least 5’ from that property
line from the neighbor.
Mr. Moore: Yes. I could accept that.
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: The wood fence that you show on the plan coming off the front
corner of your house across to your neighbor’s fence, is that something you are
proposing to erect there.
Mr. Moore: Yes, it is. It is not something that exists right now.
Vice-Chairman Weidlich: Will that be a wood privacy-type fence?
Mr. Moore: I am thinking more of a picket-type privacy fence.
Mr. Reichert: I would like to make a motion to amend the original motion for the property
at 11805 Lawnview for a 12’ X 10’ shed located 3’ from the back property
line and 5’ from the side property line.
Mr. Danbury seconded the motion
Mrs. Huber polled the Board and with a 6-0 vote the amendment to the motion was approved.
Mrs. Huber then polled the Board and with a 6-0 vote the request for the amended 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 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________,2008 ___________________________________
Chairman Dave Okum
________________________,2008 ___________________________________
Secretary Jane Huber
BOARD OF ZONING MEETING
17 JUNE 2008
PAGE 5