BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
17 JULY 2007
7:00 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:        Bob Weidlich, Bill Reichert, Jim Squires
                Jane Huber, Bob Emerson and Chairman
                Okum.

Members Absent:        Marjorie Harlow

Others Present:        Randy Campion, Inspection Supervisor
   
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 19 JUNE 2007

Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

V. CORRESPNDENCE

A. Zoning Bulletin – June 1, 2007
B. Zoning Bulletin – June 15, 2007
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – June 12, 2007
D. Memorandum – Legal opinion re Standards for Variance

VI. REPORTS

A. Report on Council

Mr. Squires reported that the final reading of the change in violations and penalties in the Zoning Code will be tomorrow night.

B. Report on Planning

Mr. Okum reported that the Planning meeting last week reviewed the final development plan for the offices at Glenview Greene at 250 West Sharon Road. There were setback and buffer yard issues plus a problem with two access cuts and this was tabled. Approval of Staples EIFS on the west elevation was discussed and was tabled as well. Planning looked at the legal opinion on the variances which they referred back to us.

VII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS

VIII. OLD BUSINESS


IX. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of variance to allow the construction of a 10’ x 16’ utility building on the property at 521 Lafayette Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(B) “..shall not exceed 120 s.f. in area.”

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE TWO

IX A 10’ X 16’ UTILITY BUILDING AT 521 LAFAYETTE AVENUE

Dan Berssenbruegge owner of 521 Lafayette Avenue said I want to increase the size of the shed from the 10’ x 12’ to 10’ x 16’. I would like to have a larger shed than is allowed. We just got married and we have quite a bit of stuff to put in it. The way it is situated on the property I do not feel it will bother any of the neighbors and will give us a nice area for storage.

I moved into the property four years ago after having been born and raised there. My dad built the house in 1950 and it had become run down. When I moved in it was pretty much considered a nuisance property. I have worked hard and I feel I have made tremendous improvements, and I would like to have this at the back of my property.

Mr. Campion reported that the applicant is requesting to construct at 10’ x 16’ (160 s.f.) utility building on his property. Section 153.492 (B) limits the maximum size of utility buildings to 120 s.f. The location proposed complies with the Zoning Code requirements. The application which was submitted is an old copy of an application and does not contain the new required information. The applicant does not explain why a variance is necessary nor does he indicate that there are any unusual circumstances about the property that make the variance necessary.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mrs. Huber moved to approve the variance and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mrs. Huber said you have something under a blue tarp in your yard; will that go into your shed? Mr. Berssenbruegge said that it would.

Mr. Okum said the new shed would be 10 feet from the right property line and 12 feet from the rear property line and the shed would be 10’ x 16’ and 10’ x 12’ is allowed by code.

Mr. Squires asked the size of the house, and Mr. Berssenbruegge reported about 950 s.f. There is a 600 s.f. patio on the back.

Mr. Okum asked the size of the garage and Mr. Berssenbruegge stated that it is 21’ x 20’. .Mr. Okum asked if he kept cars in the garage and Mr. Berssenbruegge stated that they are on the driveway or on the street. I have things in the garage that will go to the shed. This size seems to be best for my situation. Mr. Okum said your lot is 70’ x 156’.

Mr. Squires said this is an exceptionally large lot and it appears to me that it could accommodate this shed and not be out of place.

Mr. Okum said I also see that the lot is a very large one and their request is for a 10’ x 16’ shed. I think it probably will be swallowed up by virtue of the space that is there. The testimony did not indicate there was anything else on the site, and I therefore will be supporting this request.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE THREE

IX A 10’ X 16’ UTILITY BUILDING AT 521 LAFAYETTE AVENUE

Mr. Okum said the applicant held the shed almost twice the distance that is required from the property line and it leaves room for him to get behind the unit and maintain it. I think that should tie to the motion.

Mr. Squires moved to amend the motion to approve adding that the shed will be constructed 12 feet from the rear lot line and 10 feet from the side lot line. Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.

        On the amendment, all present voted aye.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

B.    Approval of variance to allow a six-foot vinyl white fence in the front yard of 639 Cloverdale Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.482(A)(3) “Fences on corner lots shall not be located in the required setback for the building from the side street line.”

Jim and Linda King-Edrington of 639 Cloverdale Avenue approached the board. Mr. Edrington said on the agenda, you have a white fence in the front yard. We consider this our back yard.

The July 13th letter, the staff comments referenced no site plan was submitted. When I received the June 14th letter on the fence, I brought all the paperwork up to the Building Department and I talked to Ms. Webb and one of the inspectors and they x’d on our application what we needed to complete. That is why no site plan was submitted with the application.

Also, there was an item about photographs. We submitted some photographs that we felt were pertinent to our case. Also, Ms. Webb added photographs from the request for variance on the property behind us.

I lived in Sharonville for 30 years and I knew I needed to come to the building people to get anything done on my property. I came in with the site plan for that, and they told me at that time that I did not need a permit for the fence. I explained to them why I wanted to put the fence up and they told me to go ahead and do it. After I did that, I returned to the Building department and informed them that the fence was done if they wanted to come out and look at it. AT the time one of your representatives did come out and Ms. Webb informed me when I brought in this application that he no longer worked there.

We have seven kids and 14 grandchildren. Some of our grandchildren are afraid of dogs. The people who live behind us have animals which is their right, but when the kids came over they wouldn’t go out in the back yard because of the dogs on the other side of the fence. We felt we needed to put a barrier up. We are friends with them; we talk to them; we just wanted to protect our grandchildren so we could have happy family get togethers.


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE FOUR

IX B VINYL WHITE FENCE IN FRONT YARD – 639 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Edrington add the letter that you sent me on July 13th, it states We believe that the applicant extended his fence to the current encroachment because it closely matches the non-conforming fence located to the rear of his neighbor’s property. That was not the reason. We took it down to the big tree and felt this was a good place to stop the fence. That way the kids could play out there and not see the dogs.

Since we have been there, you can see how we have improved the property. We have added a barn; we got the permit and your representative came out and inspected it. I applied for a permit for a deck on the back of the house and a representative was out there two or three times inspecting. No comment was made about the fence whatsoever.

We knew at the time that we could only go so far with the fence. I did the drawing, the guy came out and looked at it and that is the reason why the fence is located where it is. And it has been there since April of 2003.

If we have to remove, it would be 2 panels of the fence and we would have to incur the expense of having it removed. That is why we are requesting the variance. If we had known at the time that we weren’t allowed to go that far, I wouldn’t have put it there.

Mrs. Edrington added we have had building inspectors on our property a number of times, and we question why it is an issue now. We have been open to the building inspectors repeatedly and when they have been there in 2005 and 2004 and 2003, now in 2007 it is an issue. It is frustrating for us.

The other night we had a neighbor come who received a letter that said we were constructing a privacy fence in our front yard, so she wasn’t even given the correct information. We felt like our neighbors weren’t even getting the correct information, and fortunately that neighbor came and questioned us.

Mr. Edrington added that neighbor and her husband wrote a letter that I brought in this morning and you should have. Mrs. Edrington commented the letter said for construction of a fence, and the fence has been there since 2003. I felt our neighbors weren’t getting the proper information.

Addressing the applicants, Mr. Campion said essentially you have two front yards. You have a front yard on Harmony and a front yard on Cloverdale, or that is the way the Zoning Code looks at it. You have a corner lot and are required to meet the front yard setback for both streets.

Mr. Campion reported that they are requesting approval to allow a six-foot privacy fence to encroach into their required setback 35 feet of Harmony Avenue, the side yard. Section 153.482(A) (3) prohibits this. No site plan was submitted showing the fence and its relationship to the street. I have attached the original site plan for the house.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE FIVE

IX B VINYL WHITE FENCE IN FRONT YARD – 639 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Campion added that staff measured the distance between the curb and the fence and found it to be 31’-4” from the curb or 18’-10” from the right of way line. The result is a 16’-2” encroachment into the required setback. The applicant is indicating that he had his fence approved by the Building Department on April 8, 2003. This date predates the city’s requirement for a fence permit. We have no record or recollection of approving the applicant’s fence. We believe the applicant extended his fence to the current encroachment because it closely matches the non-conforming fence of his neighbor to the rear. It appears that approximately two full fence sections and part of a third would need to be removed to comply.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, adding let the record show that we have a letter from residents, and as it is addressed and signed, we will incorporate it into the minutes as part of the testimony.

“Dear Building Official:

The property owner of 639 Cloverdale Avenue has applied to the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to allow a fence in their back and side yard.

The owners have a beautifully landscaped yard. They are an asset to have not only as neighbors, but members of the Springdale Community. They help keep the values of houses up in our area. The home improvements increase everyone’s property value.

We voice that Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals write the variance to allow the construction of the fence.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Bernard and Janet Janson”:

Felicia Shanley, 640 Smiley Avenue said before the fence was erected, they spoke to us and explained what they were going to do. We had no problem with it; we speak to each other all the time.

Where the fence is located and behind the big tree, they have a beautiful garden with a nice sitting area. If you don’t allow them to have a variance, we will be looking at removing the 2 panels of that fence which will give all the neighborhood children access to walk through the back part of their yard and through the garden area. Right now it is preventing any children from going through there. It is right up against that tree, and yes they can go diagonally through part of it, but the part that is open actually has stepping stones that you can walk through. The part prevented by the fence has beautiful flowers and shrubs. Honestly I feel it would really destroy the beauty that is there if they had to remove that fence.

No one else came forward and Mr. Okum closed the public hearing.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE SIX

IX B VINYL WHITE FENCE IN FRONT YARD – 639 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Reichert moved to approve the six-foot privacy fence to encroach 16’-2” into the required setback on Harmony Avenue. Mr. Squires seconded t he motion.

Mr. Squires said I am concerned. You built that fence in April of 2003. When were you told that it was out of variance? Mr. Edrington responded in the letter dated June14, 2007. We put a barn on the property and the inspector was there and never said a word about the fence. We put the deck up and nothing was said. Mrs. Edrington added he had been there before as well to stop by and say hi. We were open to the inspectors at any point if they had a comment regarding the fence. My husband has been to the zoning office multiple times; he and Ms. Webb have talked a number of times.

Mr. Edrington said I was involved in Sharonville during the 30 years I lived there, and I knew if I wanted to do anything to enhance my property, I had to come before the city to get approval. It’s not like I threw the fence up and tried to sneak it in.

Mr. Okum said I understand, but there was no inspection required by our code at that time. Mr. Edrington responded right, but your department did come out and look at it at that time. Mrs. Edrington added just as a courtesy so we felt good about what we were doing.

Mrs. Huber said your property is lovely and I have no objection to the fence. I suspect in time it may have to be replaced, but your property is lovely.

Mrs. Edrington said last month you asked about how it would be maintained over time, and he power washed it and it came out like brand new.

Mr. Emerson asked if the fence was on the property line and Mr. Edrington answered that it is within the property line. There was a chain link fence there when we moved in.

Mr. Emerson said we have a drawing that shows the fence continues to the back of the barn. Is the fence tied into the corner of the barn? Mr. Edrington answered Ms. Fox lives next door to us, and there was a gap between the original property line and her garage. She asked us to extend the fence to the edge of her garage so she could have added privacy. The fence goes behind my barn and to the edge of her garage.

Mr. Okum said the reason you extended the fence was because the chain link fence was closer to Harmony than the code would allow it to be today. That fence would be able to stay like it is as it is as long as it is maintained. As soon as your neighbor goes to replace that, they have to apply the same standards of the setback from the property line. The quandary is the code is written to hold fences back to the setback line from Harmony.



BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE SEVEN

IX B VINYL WHITE FENCE IN FRONT YARD – 639 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Okum added it is a difficult situation. Springdale does not allow a front yard fence. As far as I am concerned, I do not have a problem with the vertical element on a fence. l understand why you erected the fence the length you did and there was not an inspection procedure for fences when you put it up. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see the fence moved back, but I like your yard the way it is.

Mr. Okum added I do not find any fault with your fence, but if the people behind you ever replace the fence, can they replace it within the setback requirements. I am having a real hard time with this. Right now we are looking at a vertical element not a horizontal one.

Mr. Okum said if this board were to consider a condition, I would encourage that it be that the fence at no time be any wider in terms of the encroachment on Harmony. Mrs. Edrington said I would agree with that. Mr. Edrington added if we were to make it wider, we would have to take the tree down.

Ms. Colleen Fox of 635 Cloverdale Avenue arrived late and was sworn in by Mr. Okum. She said I live next door to this property and only came to support the fact that I love everything they have done on their property. The fence has been a big improvement, and I don’t have any objection to it.

Addressing Mr. Emerson, Mrs. Edrington said it is Ms. Fox whose garage it extends over to.

Mr. Emerson moved to amend the motion that the fence is never to be t’d or l’d and moved toward the front yard on Cloverdale. Mr. Reichert seconded the motion. On the amendment, all voted aye.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

VIII. OLD BUSINESS

A. Approval of variance to allow the construction of fence in the front yard at 640 Smiley Avenue (corner lot). Said variance is requested from Section 153.482(A) (3) “Fences on corner lots shall not be located in the required setback for the building from the side street line.” Tabled 6/19/07

Felicia Shanley owner of 640 Smiley Avenue approached the board. We wanted to bring the fence off of our existing neighbor’s fence. We were not going to attach to their fence, but we wanted to make it look a little bit nice coming off our existing fence (the chain link which is desperately needs to be removed and fixed). We are looking at a six-foot white vinyl privacy fence to fairly match what the neighbors have behind us to come up halfway along the side of the house. This also is to protect the only spigot we have outside that has been left running in the past by people walking down Harmony and allowing our basement to be flooded. This also is to protect the two bedroom windows that we have facing Harmony that are open, now that we have removed the bush in that area.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE EIGHT

VIII A FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF CORNER LOT – 640 SMILEY AVENUE

Mrs. Shanley added early Monday morning our central station burglar alarm went off stating that somebody was trying to break into our bedroom windows. It is frightening and that is part of the reason we wanted to do that, to protect ourselves a little more. It still leaves a very large area of grass and trees that are visible on the outside, and it doesn’t block sight from Smiley or Cloverdale.

Mr. .Okum asked the size of the fence, and Mrs. Shanley answered it is a six-foot privacy fence the white vinyl similar to what the Edringtons have up. The top is exactly the same; the only difference in the slats is that there are no little spaces. It is all closed, so it is a true privacy fence to come up along the side.

Where the existing chain link fence is out towards Harmony, the variance would be from that, not from the end of the house, which is already two feet beyond what the code allows, which is 35 feet. It would be two feet further out than where our existing chain link fence is. It still leaves approximately 22 feet to Harmony. .

Seeing their fence and the condition it is in after being up for four years, the maintenance is very minimal. It looks beautiful after four years unlike so many wood fences and we are trying to make our property look a little more presentable.

Mr. Campion reported that the applicant is requesting to erect a fence within the side yard setback on a corner lot. Section 153.482(A) (3) prohibits the placement of a fence within the required setback on a side yard street of a corner lot. The side yard setback is 35 feet, approximately 45 feet from the street curb.

The existing residence and fence are legal non-conforming. They were constructed prior to the zoning requirements for the setbacks. Whenever a non-conforming use is removed or discontinued, any new construction must comply with today’s code.

The applicant is proposing to erect a six foot privacy fence in the present non-conforming location on the west side and further encroaching approximately 22 feet along the west side of the residence. It appears that the applicant is requesting a 20 foot setback from the Harmony Avenue right of way.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.

Jim Edrington, 639 Cloverdale Avenue said they have already started replacing the fence, what they are legally allowed to do. It has enhanced the look of their property and their privacy. They want to enclose part of their house in for their safety. Mr. Shanley isn’t in the best health, and if they could have some kind of additional safety measures to keep their bedroom window from being exposed so somebody could get into it would be a great help.

Linda King Edrington of 639 Cloverdale said I would just like to reiterate and reinforce that they are making every effort to improve their property and secure their animals and make things better. Anything you could do to help support them we would appreciate.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE NINE

VIII A FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF CORNER LOT – 640 SMILEY AVENUE

No one else came forward, and Mr. Okum closed the public hearing.

Mr. Squires moved to approve a fence 20’ from the Harmony Avenue right of way        

Mr. Campion reported that the side yard setback is 35 feet and it is approximately 45 feet from the curb of the street. Their house sets two feet into the setback. It is non-conforming. We could deduce from the drawing how far the fence is from the house. Mr. Campion said we will be 22 feet off the public right of way. Mrs. Shanley said we think it is 20 feet from the public right of way. The house itself is at 33 feet, we are 33 feet from the right of way of Harmony. So 10 feet would make us at 22 or 23 feet from the right of way.

Mr. Emerson said last month they stated that it was 11 feet from the house.

Mr. Squires changed his motion to approve a fence 22 feet from the Harmony Avenue right of way and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.

Mr. Campion said to clarify, are you considering making the fence even with the other fence?

Mr. Shanley responded we are going to one corner. Mr. Campion commented based on the photo, I was thinking it was 22 feet. Mr. Okum said according to Mr. McErlane’s report on the last one, that fence was 18’-10” from the right of way line. Somebody measured it, so we will say that 18’-10” is where the white fence is.

Mr. Okum said the setback on front yard fences is in the code for a reason. I think that bringing their fence out to be even with the neighbors would be a mistake. A six-foot high fence would be a bigger mistake and I would not support it being even with the rear.

Unfortunately we have a fence that was created some years ago that is now a legal placement of the fence, but I could not support a wall of white down Harmony, the requested distance.

On the security issue, if you are worried about it you could put a fence totally around the house. For life safety issues, if the fire department were to need to get to those bedrooms that fence along the side of the house would be more of a hindrance to them. So I could not support it going along side the house. I supported what I considered a vertical element on the other parcel for what I find a true hardship because it was placed in good faith a number of years ago, and it was put there to deal with another issue. At this point, I haven’t heard testimony that would give me reason that they could not place a fence functionally even with the side of their house.




BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE TEN

VIII A FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF CORNER LOT – 640 SMILEY AVENUE

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Weidlich said you stated your alarm system went off the other evening, so you do have an alarm system. I am struggling with that going up the side of your home. I understand the safety and the plumbing portion; I had similar problems with my house years ago. I can’t support the portion going up the side of the house.

Mr. Reichert said if you are running the fence along Harmony and it makes a turn and goes into your house, how far is that to Smiley? Does that fit into the 35-foot setback?

Mr. Shanley answered yes it does. If you go from the front corner of our house, it is a pie shape we are not going to the front corner of the house. We are going to the front of that second chimney, which is half way up the side of the house. The corner of the house to Smiley is 35 feet. The other side is 33 feet. Mrs. Shanley added when you measure from Smiley down, the front of our house is a longer distance from Smiley than it is from Harmony.

Mr. Campion said if you look at the site plan, the fence runs parallel to the house, but the front of the property is a little wider than the back. So at the back of the property that fence is probably 18’-6” and it probably is 22 feet off the right of way. Mr. Okum said because the street turns off and flares out. So it would be 18’-10” at the rear corner and at the location where the fence was to have ended, it would be 22 feet.

Mr. Squires asked if the fence would connect with your neighbor. Mrs. Shanley answered it will not attach to it. It will set next to it. Where the fence ends, we would put a pole next to that and come off that. It would not be an attachment to their fence; it would be totally separate. It would go halfway, past the first chimney.

Mr. Squires asked if the existing chain link fence would be removed, and Mrs. Shanley indicated that it would be. Mr. Squires asked if there was a concern that you might be compromising your safety if there were a fire and our people would have to get in there. Mrs. Shanley answered we will have a gate to it at the front so they could get into the back yard. The fire hydrant is across the street and it is quite close. Mr. Squires said you don’t feel this board would be compromising your safety if we approved this? Mrs. Shanley answered I honestly do not. We have fire extinguishers inside the house and the central station alarm does have a key pad so we can immediately call the fire department.

Mr. Squires said I am struggling with this. This board cannot be in a position of compromising your safety. I think Mr. Okum is right that the fence all along Harmony could possibly present an obstacle to our professionals to get to you, and we don’t want to do that.

Mr. Weidlich said I have been struggling with the idea of the fence all the way down the side meeting the neighbor’s fence. I would be more inclined to support the fence coming off the corner of the home and going straight back to the neighbor’s fence, a two-foot variance. Aesthetically I think it would look a lot better in the neighborhood.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE ELEVEN

VIII A FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF CORNER LOT – 640 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Emerson said I would have a problem supporting the motion for the main reason why we put the restriction on the previous, not to t off and go toward the front. We would be creating that white wall corridor going across Harmony. Like Mr. Weidlich, I would be more apt to support this from the corner of the house with a two foot variance straight back.

Addressing the applicants, Mr. Okum said it does not appear that you will receive a favorable vote. There have been two board members who suggested a two-foot variance to allow you to place a fence at the corner of your home to the rear. Is that acceptable to you? Mr. and Mrs. Shanley responded that would be fine.

Mr. Okum said let the record show that based on our conversation with the applicants and for the purpose of understanding, they are accepting a modification to their request to allow the fence to go from the corner of your home straight back to the rear property, approximately a two-foot variance. Mrs. Shanley said that is correct and if we go back to the fence across the back, it would leave two and one half panels to the outside.

Mr. Okum said we need a motion to amend the requested variance to allow for a fence to be constructed from the rear corner of the home straight back to the rear property line, approximately a two-foot variance and that the existing chain link fence along Harmony Avenue will be removed. Mr. Reichert so moved and Mr. Emerson seconded the motion. On the amendment, all present voted aye, and the motion was amended.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye and the amended motion was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Approval of variance to allow two utility buildings n the property at 11850 Glenfalls Court. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(B) (1) “There shall be no more than one detached accessory building.” Tabled 6/19/07

Edward Lampkin owner of 11850 Glenfalls Court approached the board. I am requesting to have two sheds because I don’t have a basement and I have nowhere to put my lawn furniture. I put that 8’ x 10’ shed up to store my lawn furniture. I have one shed to put my tools in that is full, and I use the other one for my lawn furniture.

Mr. Campion reported that it is not entirely clear what is being requested by the applicant. We assume that the request is to keep the two utility buildings on the property because of the violation notice that was sent to the applicant to remove one and obtain a permit (copy attached).

The site plan submitted is a poor representation of structures on the property. A site plan showing the location and size of all structures on the property should be submitted. A permit was issued in 1992 for a 10’ x 12’ wood utility building.

The applicant has not given any reasons or practical difficulties which warrant a second shed or one more than 120 s.f. in size.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE TWELVE

VIII B – TWO UTILITY BUILDINGS - 11850 GLENFALLS COURT

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance for two accessory structures on the property at 11850 Glenfalls Court and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires asked if both of the sheds are 8’ x 10’. Mr. Lampkin answered one is 8’ x 10’ to store my lawn furniture, and the other one is 10’ x 12’, and has been up for a long time.

Mr. Okum said the permit was issued in 1992 for a 10’ x 12’ shed. What size is the new shed? Mr. Lampkin answered it is a small shed, 8’ x 10’.

Mr. Squires commented one of these sheds look deteriorated; is that the one you want to replace? Mr. Okum said he wants to keep both sheds.

Mr. Emerson asked the applicant if he realized that he was only allowed one utility building. Mr. Lampkin responded no. The neighbor and Ii put the shed up and if I had known it was going to cause this much problem, I would never have done it. I don’t have anywhere to put the lawn furniture and I need the second shed. I didn’t put it up for decoration; I put it up because I need it. It is not a piece of junk.

Mr. Okum commented we can see that there has been some sweat equity in this new shed. It is clear that the new shed has been painted and it appears to be built fairly stable, and you have put some effort into that. Did you own the property in 1992? Mr. Lampkin responded I have been there about 30 years. Mr. Okum said so you applied for the building permit in 1992 to put a shed on your property. Mr. Lampkin answered I didn’t put that first shed up. Mr. Okum said so someone else put it up and they got the permit for you. Mr. Lampkin said yes, the same way they did the deck. Mr. Okum continued this time you didn’t get a permit; you had a friend help you and put the shed up.

Mr. Squires asked the depth of his lot and how wide the lot is. Mr. Lampkin answered from that shed over to the line, from the house setting on that side is about 28 feet and from the back of my house to the shed is about 23 feet, and from the other side is 41 feet.

Mr. Okum showed the CAGIS drawing of the property lines.

Mr. Okum said if this applicant had come before this board with a request for a larger shed than a 10’ x 12’, because of the size of his parcel I probably would have supported that. On the other hand, the code is written to eliminate multiple buildings on a parcel, so, Mr. Lampkin I probably can’t support your request to allow two sheds. At this point, I won’t be supporting your request.

   


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE THIRTEEN

VIII B – TWO UTILITY BUILDINGS - 11850 GLENFALLS COURT

Mr. Squires asked the applicant if he could get by with one shed that is maybe 10’ x 16’ or 160 s.f. That is about 40 s.f. less than what you have now. I’m using a 10’ x 16’ shed as an example.
What we are trying to do is see if you can get by with one shed that is larger than the 10’ x 12’ that you have.

Mr. Lampkin responded if I could have gotten by with one, I wouldn’t have spent the money to buy the second one. I have my tools and stuff in that shed and the second shed is for the furniture for the deck. Now I understand that I am only allowed one shed, but I did not know that

Mr. Squires added what we are saying is that you may be required by the Building Department to remove one of those sheds. Mr. Lampkin responded if I have to move one, I’ll move the small one. Mr. Squires said if we can get you approved for a 10’ x 16’ shed, could you use that?

Mr. Lampkin said you are saying that I could tear those two down and put up a great big one? Mr. Okum said a 10’ x 16’ is what Mr. Squires has recommended, which is 160 s.f. You currently have 200 s.f. of sheds on your property.

Mr. Lampkin commented if I could find one. Mr. Okum responded you could find one; we approved one earlier this evening. We’d be happy to provide you with the literature on it.

Mr. Squires has offered a compromise to allow only our property one shed of 160 s.f. The question is would you consolidate your two sheds into one shed of 160 s.f. Mr. Lampkin said I would check it out. Mr. Okum added if that would be your request, we could consider a modification of the motion.

Mr. Okum said it would be bigger than your big one, smaller than your little one, 160 s.f. total. It would give you one shed on your property as the code allows, and larger than the code allows. Mr. Lampkin commented I went and looked at the biggest shed they had, and it was not as big as the one I have now. The sheds are smaller now; they don’t make them as big as the one I have on my lot now.

Mr. Okum commented I am a little confused on the size of your big one. You are giving me evidence right now that your shed might be bigger than what was allowed.

Mr. Lampkin said I’ll see if I can find one. Mr. Okum said would you like us to amend your request to allow for one shed, a total of up to 160 s.f.? If that’s what you’ve got to do on my property, that’s what I’ve got to do. Mr.Okum said the code only allows 120 s.f. for a shed.. Mr. Squires has recommended larger than what is allowed.

Mr. Lampkin added I am just saying that I pay taxes and if that is what you want me to try to do, I’ll try to do that. Mr. Okum said we are trying to help you through the process, and sometimes it is not to our liking.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE FOURTEEN

VIII B – TWO UTILITY BUILDINGS - 11850 GLENFALLS COURT

Mr. Lampkin said so if I put up a stick, I have to come and get a permit, right? Mr. Okum responded if you put a building up, you have to have a permit. Mr. Lampkin added I’m not trying to be smart. I’m just saying that any time I put something on my property, I have to get a permit. Mr. Okum said everybody does. We don’t charge for permits, but you do have to get one. Mr. Lampkin said I’ll see if I can find one. Mr. Okum responded I think you will be able to. We will be happy to provide you with literature that was given to us tonight for a 10’ x 16’ shed. Is that what you want us to do, or do you want us to vote on the issue of allowing you to have two sheds?

Mr. Squires said I have been on this board for quite a number of years, and we have never approved two sheds on one piece of property. Mr. Lampkin responded if I had a basement, I wouldn’t have put it up. I made a choice; I made a bad choice. Mr. Squires said don’t say that; that is not what we are getting at. I don’t think your request for two sheds will fly, but we can vote on it. As a compromise, a larger shed on that property, because it is a good sized lot, probably would. Mr. Lampkin said Lowe’s doesn’t have a big shed. They don’t make them as big as the one I have on my lot.

Mr. Okum gave Mr. Lampkin the literature showing the 10’ x 16’ shed. I have a brochure from Lowe’s that show the different sheds sizes. There are 10’ x 16’s, 12’ x 10’s, 10’ x 14’s. They come in a lot of different sizes so you should be able to find something. Mr. Reichert added they won’t have them in the store but they can build them bigger.

Mr. Okum added they have samples on site, but they do make different size sheds. They have a brochure that you can get there that will tell you the different styles. Would you likek for us to vote on your request for two sheds, or would you like us to vote on allowing you one shed of 160 s.f.? Mr. Lampkin responded the one shed.

Mr. Squires moved to amend the motion to grant a variance for one shed of the size of up to 10’ x 16’. Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.

On the amendment all present vote aye, and the amendment passed with six affirmative votes.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted for one shed of up to 10’ x 16’ with six affirmative votes.

VIII. OLD BUSINESS







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE FIFTEEN

X. DISCUSSION

A. Standard for Variances – Referred by Board of Zoning Appeals

Mr. Okum said we won’t go into size of sheds tonight. We do have the report back from the Law Director’s office. The conclusion is the simplest thing. “There is no legal impediment to adopting the revisions proposed by BZA. However, when making these changes it is also recommended that the additional revisions be made consistent with the Ohio Supreme Court rulings. Specifically it is recommended that the seven Duncan factors be codified as part of the Zoning Code related to practical difficulties in area variances. A draft of the proposed changes is attached.

Frankly, I have read it and I think it is perfect, but it is up to you. It is your recommendation to Planning and then to Council.

Mr. Squires said I like it; I think it addresses our issue. Mr. Okum added it gives you more considerations. Your consideration list became the Duncan Factors plus A B C and D. What is your recommendation?

Mr. Squires recommended that it go back to Planning Commission and Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.

Mr. Reichert asked if this had any impact on changing the size of sheds. Mr. Okum responded it does in a way. Currently the interpretation of it is all or none. You have to answer all those tests that were given to us by staff and by the law director’s office years ago. According to our current ordinance, those tests have to be met in all of those before a variance would be granted. Practically it doesn’t apply, because it never happens. So the board has recommended to Planning Commission that a consideration of all of those should be a part of the deliberation process, but it is not iron clad that it has to be this. You might as well just have somebody there with a checklist saying yes yes yes yes yes, and if they don’t pass the test, it gets referred to the BZA before it goes any further. Hamilton County has a zoning variance administrator with a checklist. If he denies the application, they can appeal his decision to the board. This gives our board the ability to consider, but it adds extra considerations in your deliberation. The Duncan test by Supreme Court ruling in Ohio has to be applied to a variance; those seven points have to be considered.

Mr. Reichert asked if the board still was considering changing the 120 s.f. shed maximum and the consideration of decorative fencing. Mr. Okum said that would be a part of the code change. Mr. Reichert said so this has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Reichert said I am in favor of it.

By voice vote, all present voted aye and this will go back to Planning Commission.





BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
17 JULY 2007
PAGE SIXTEEN

Mr. Emerson asked if there was any way to get some hearing impaired assistance at the podium for the applicants? Mr. Okum commented we need hearing impaired assistance period for these chambers. We have councilmembers who cannot hear testimony in theses chambers. I talked to the mayor, Tom Vanover and Ms. McNear about this on the 4th of July. Mr. Squires, this has to be addressed.

XI. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Emerson moved to adjourn and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Apjpeals adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

                    Respectfully submitted,



___________________,2007    __________________________
                    David Okum, Chairman



____________________2007    __________________________
                    Jane Huber, Recording Secretary