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. CHAIRMANS 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 xd 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 wouldnt 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 neighbors 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 ½ 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 werent allowed to go that far, I wouldnt 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 wasnt even given the correct
information. We felt like our neighbors werent 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 werent
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 citys requirement for a fence permit. We have no
record or recollection of approving the applicants 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 everyones 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 dont allow them to have a variance, we will be looking at
removing the 2 ½ 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. Its 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
dont 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 td or ld
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 neighbors 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
doesnt 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 todays 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
isnt 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. McErlanes
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 havent 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 cant 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 dont 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 dont 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 neighbors fence. I would be more inclined to support the fence
coming off the corner of the home and going straight back to the neighbors 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 dont 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 dont have
anywhere to put the lawn furniture and I need the second shed. I didnt 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 didnt 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
didnt 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 cant support your request to allow two sheds.
At this point, I wont 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. Im 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 wouldnt 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,
Ill 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. Wed 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 dont 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 Ill 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 thats what
youve got to do on my property, thats what Ive 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, Ill 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 Im
not trying to be smart. Im just saying that any time I put something on my property,
I have to get a permit. Mr. Okum said everybody does. We dont charge for permits,
but you do have to get one. Mr. Lampkin said Ill 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
wouldnt have put it up. I made a choice; I made a bad choice. Mr. Squires said
dont say that; that is not what we are getting at. I dont 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 Lowes
doesnt have a big shed. They dont 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 Lowes that show the different sheds sizes. There are 10 x
16s, 12 x 10s, 10 x 14s. They come in a lot of different
sizes so you should be able to find something. Mr. Reichert added they wont 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 wont go into size of sheds tonight. We do have the report back from
the Law Directors 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 directors
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 doesnt 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 dont 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