BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

18 JULY 1995

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilwomen Kathy McNear and Marge Boice,

William Mitchell, Ralph Nadaud, Thomas Schecker,

James Young and Wilton Blake.

III. MINUTES OF 20 JUNE 1995

Mr. Blake moved to adopt and Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Blake stated that Mr. Mitchellís name was in the Minutes as Mitchell Williams, and asked that this be corrected. By voice vote all except Mrs. Boice who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

Mrs. Boice commented I was not here when the Minutes of May 16 were

approved, and concerning the petition by Mr. Don Daggett of 228 Harter, I removed myself from the podium and did not participate. The Minutes

do read that Mrs. Boice abstained; I did nothing, and would like to have that

corrected since I was not in the room.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 13 June 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 6A - June 15, 1995

C. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 7 - July 1995

D. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated no report, but the budget was adopted at the last meeting.

E. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. Blake has submitted a written report, which we

put in the Minutes.

"The following action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting of

July 11, 1995.

1. Richard E. Dooley, President, R.E.D. Construction Requests

Final Approval of Proposed 2326 Square Foot Building

Addition to Micro 1, 155 Northland Boulevard

Passed 6-0

2. Payless Shoes Requests a 22" x 24í Wall Sign at 80 West

Kemper Road. Total Signage Allowed is 160 Square Feet;

191.76 Square Feet is Requested (Section 153.092(D)(1)(b)

"Maximum gross area of signs..")

Tabled to 8/8/95

3. North American Properties Requests Four One-Week Center-

Wide Sidewalk Sales (Tri-County Commons Shopping Center).

Section 153.160(4)(b) Directs that "duration and frequency..

shall in no event exceed two such sales during any calendar

year."

Passed 6-0"

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Two

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Maria Schon, Manager of Carriage Court Apartments, 11580 Olde Gate Drive requests a variance to hang temporary banners as needed. Variance is requested from Section 153.160(C)(3) "Temporary signs..may be permitted in General Business, Motorist Service or Retail Service Districts.." (b)"Such signs may be placed only on the interior of windows or doors and on the exterior of building." (d) "..shall in no event exceed two consecutive weeks..and four occasions of usage during any calendar year.." (tabled 6/20/95)

Mrs. Boice moved to drop this from the agenda. This is two meetings in a row that there has been no attendance by the petitioner. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the matter was dropped.

A. RSL Architecture requests variance to allow parking space width of 8í6" at Executive Plaza I & II, 134 & 144 Merchant Street. Variance is requested from Section 153.123 which indicates a required 9í minimum width parking stall.

Mr. Nadaud said since there is no representative from RSL, I will entertain a motion to table. Mrs. McNear moved to table and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and this will be tabled until August 15, 1995.

B. Carol Norman, 504 Grandin Avenue requests a variance to construct a 16í x 22í deck projecting into the front yard. Variance is requested from Section 153.037(B) "An entrance hood, deck..may project six feet into required front yard." (10.5í shown)

Paul Rainey stated we would like to put a deck in the front of the house. In order to put up a deck of a size that balances with the house, we feel it takes about a 16 foot deck and 22 feet wide. He showed a picture of the house, adding in this area is a depression. Mrs. McNear said there are a couple of stakes in the front yard; is that where the porch would go? Mr. Paul Rainey answered yes, adding we can go 11 and one half feet, but we want 16, so we are looking for four and one half feet more. Incidentally the porch on the house next door is already out beyond where we want to go.

Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any particular reason why he wants to put such a large deck on the front of the house? Mr. Rainey responded 11 and one half feet makes it awfully narrow and as decks go, thatís not a large deck. The house is long enough and the lot is large enough to support that size deck. Mr. Mitchell asked why the deck wouldnít be at the rear of the house, and Mr. Rainey answered you canít put one in the rear. There is a garage, and there is only 12 feet between the house and the garage, and it is uneven ground in addition to that, and it doesnít provide a view of the front of the house, the street.

Mr. Schecker commented looking at the symmetry of the thing, the 22 foot width would protrude beyond the existing rear wood view of your house , and seems to be encroaching on the driveway; what is the game plan here? Mr. Mitchell said thatís a grass area, I believe. Mr. Rainey showed Mr. Schecker the plan.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Three

VI B CAROL NORMAN, 504 GRANDIN AVENUE - PROPOSED DECK - continued

Mr. Young asked if this were going to be a deck with no handrails? Mr. Rainey answered at the present we probably wonít put rails, but we might want to later on. It is low enough that it is not required; it depends on whether it seems practical or not.

Mrs. Boice said when you were saying 16 x 22 feet is not that large, as a comparison, the deck at the back of my property is 14 x 17 feet. That deck accommodates a table, umbrella, four chairs, a rocking loveseat, end tables, a lounge chair and two other chairs; 16 x 22 seems sizable to me, particularly for the front of a house.

Mr. Rainey responded I canít debate that, but 14 x 17 isnít a great deal of difference from 16 x 22. If we cut your deck down to 11 and one half feet, you might feel the pinch.

Mrs. Boice answered Iím not talking about cutting it to 11 and one half feet. I think the dimensions 16 x 22 seems a bit large. I can project exactly what you are saying. I am a little bit concerned about 16 x 22, which is larger than the living room measurements of the house. The living room is 15 x 21, and you are asking for a deck 16 x 22. Mr. Rainey stated the only thing in contention is the other five and one-half feet. The 22 feet is not in contention. It is the difference between 11 and 1/2 feet and 16 feet.

Mr. Nadaud asked if he intends to keep the existing walkway there. Mr. Rainey answered we will remove the slab to the entrance to the house, cover the walkway and add new steps to the deck. Mr. Nadaud continued so the new deck would protrude over the existing walkway.

Mrs. McNear asked how high off the ground the deck would be, and Mr. Rainey answered on the west side it will be virtually on the ground. it may have a two or three inch elevation. On the east side, by the driveway will be about 24 to 26 inches. Mrs. McNear asked Mr. McErlane the rules about railings around a deck. Mr. McErlane reported if the difference in grade from the deck surface to the adjacent grade is more than 30 inches, they are required to have a railing. Mr. Rainey added I would be happy to put railings on if they are needed. I may do it anyway.

Mrs. Boice commented correct me if I am wrong, but some of us here are concerned about the size, and what I am hearing from you that there is no working with you on this; it is 16í x 22í, is that it? You donít see any feasibility in reducing the size? Mr. Rainey responded no maíam, if you turn me down, weíll probably go ahead with 11 and one half feet. If thatís all we can have, thatís what we will accept. Mrs. Boice said thatís not what we are saying. I am not saying that I would confine you to 11 and 1/2 feet. I think we can maybe work something out. I just think reducing some of that length and a bit of that width would be more attractive.

Mr. Rainey stated certainly I am not adverse to that. It works better at 16 feet and 22 feet simply because of the problems. For one thing, this is about one foot to the other side of where the entrance to the house is now. If I am cut down from the 22 feet, then I have to build a new concrete entrance to the house, probably, because the deck wonít make it to the other side. It also works better with 16 feet out, simply because of the contour of the sidewalk and the driveway. But no, Iíll work with whatever I can get.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Four

VI B CAROL NORMAN, 504 GRANDIN AVENUE PROPOSED DECK - continued

Mr. Schecker asked about the neighbor on Rose Lane, on the corner. Have they seen the plans, and does it bother them? Mr. Rainey answered not at all; we have been to the neighbors on all sides, and there is no problem. And, you know itís just a deck, not a two-story structure that would be there forever.

Mr. Nadaud asked if he was going to tear out the existing concrete? Mr. Rainey said yes. Mr. Nadaud continued do you plan to do anything to that, like fill it in or even it out before you put the deck in? Mr. Rainey answered we plan on covering it up with the deck. We didnít see any necessity to build it in and wall it in. Mr. Nadaud continued if you leave it in its rough state on the east side, it would be quite visible if you are 24 inches off the ground. Mr. Rainey responded by the time you get the face plate on the end of the deck, which is 12 x 8í there would be very little area. Mr. Nadaud said so it will be enclosed, and Mr. Rainey confirmed this, adding I expect it to be a good looking deck.

Mr. Young commented I tend to agree with Mrs. Boice to a certain degree. Part of what is wrong with the drawing is your deck size isnít drawn to scale; it is actually larger than it appears on the drawing. I think we need to take that into consideration in making this decision. Also, is it the intent for just sitting out on, or is the intent to use the deck for having parties that is usually done in the back yard where your neighbors donít have to participate if they donít want to. Mr. Rainey commented weíve reached the point of life where we donít do a lot of partying. Mr. Young continued I have a 16í x 16í deck, and I think it is large. If that is your intent and there is only two of you or maybe a few friends, why would you need such a large deck? Mr. Rainey answered the intention is simply to try and balance it out. It will become the entrance to the house. If we bring it almost to the edge of the house, it would balance out. We can cut this over to here, but I think it would not add to the appearance of things; in fact I think it would not be near as attractive. To reduce it to here would be practical; if this were acceptable, that would be very fine.

Mr. Nadaud stated I donít think the board has a problem with the 22 feet; it is the 16 feet. Mr. Rainey commented there are houses all the way down the street that are well within those limitations. Mr. Nadaud asked if he knew the dimension from the front of the house to the edge of the sidewalk and if he could move that out to the edge of the sidewalk, adding it would make it easier that you wouldnít have to rip out all that concrete; you could build to the edge. Mr. Rainey answered probably 14 feet, but I still would have to take it out, but thatís all right. It becomes a little easier if I could have put my piers down on the other side, but thatíll

be fine.

Mr. Nadaud asked if he would be willing to change this to a 14í x 22í deck? the reason I am saying this is if we go ahead and vote on it as 16í x 22í and it doesnít pass, you have to wait six months before you can resubmit Mr. Rainey responded 14í x 22í is fine.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant a variance for a 14í x 22í deck and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Young and Mr. Blake. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

18 July 1995

Page Five

 

C. Derek Boone, 464 Smiley Avenue requests a variance to place air conditioning unit in side yard 3 feet from the property line. Variance is requested from Section 153.052 "..if it is no closer than 7 feet to the side lot line, provided it is screened from view.."

Larry Hoffman of Star One Realtors stated I represent the Boones who are both present. Derek and Tracy Boone have been citizens since 1987 or 1988. He showed photographs, adding we contacted the people to the right and left of the property as well as the rear and across the street. A variance is being requested to move the air conditioning unit to the left side of the house just behind the chimney. The location as it is now would be to the right rear of the building, which would bother the people to the rear with the swimming pool. It would also bother the people to the right; they have a patio, and youíll note on the side of their house the compressor noise would affect them. The compressor also would be underneath the master bedroom window, which would irritate them I would think.

Mrs. McNear asked how far out from the chimney the air conditioning unit would protrude? Mr. Hoffman responded my understanding is that the owner Joe Hill was to drop off the specs of the air conditioner as well as a copy of the site plan. Mr. Nadaud reported all we have is this sketch here. Mrs. McNear added it shows the placement, but not the specs on it. Mr. Hoffman added very honestly I canít imagine that it would be more than a foot or a foot and a half off the chimney. Mrs. Boice commented it would have to be a foot or more for proper circulation of the air. Mr. Hoffman continued so it probably be three and one-half feet from the side of the house, and the chimney itself is two feet from the side of the house. Mrs. Boice commented the chimney will not hide it, of that I am sure. Mr. Hoffman reported the intent is to buffer the air conditioner compressor with foliage of some sort.

Mrs. Boice said you said you could not place it in this area because of the noise, because these people have a deck. Mr. Hoffman showed Mrs. Boice how close the deck would be to this rear corner of the house. Mrs. Boice continued I live in The Terrace where homes are very close together, eight feet apart. My air conditioner is to the rear underneath a bathroom window, which puts it right under my bedroom window. Letís face it, you have the air on, you donít have the window open anyway. It is very close to my kitchen window, and my neighbor has built an addition onto her house and they sit outside and are approximately 10 to 12 feet from that air conditioner, and Iíve never had any problems with noise. And as I said you donít open your window when you run your air.

Mr. Hoffman responded I understand your point, and I will tell you that I live with an air conditioning unit in the back of the house, and as soon as the thing breaks down itís going to the side of the house because it is an irritation to us while we are on the patio. That patio (indicating picture) will be next to the air conditioning unit, too. I spoke to the people who own the house behind it with the pool; they are not concerned at all about the movement of the air conditioning unit. I spoke to the people to the right of the property; they happen to be in Michigan and I spoke to them in Michigan. I spoke to the people across the street, the Voelkers, and they have no problem with the movement either.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Six

VIC DEREK BOONE, 464 SMILEY AIR CONDITIONER IN SIDE YARD - continued

Mr. Hoffman stated it seems to me and it seems to the Boones that while it may not be an irritation to anyone in the back yard, certainly it is a better position to put it on the side where it bothers nobody. Youíll notice that that the only neighbor that is there is that white structure to the left of the house, and I hardly think it would bother anybody in that house. Mr. Watson is the owner of that particular property

Mr. Schecker said the white house was the one I was concerned about, because they would be directly impacted by this and it would be in very close proximity to their bedroom windows. I was curious as to what their attitudes are.

Mr. Hoffman responded I canít answer that. We delivered a copy of the petition for variance to the ownerís son who happens to be a real estate agent. His name is Tim Watson, who also is a resident of Springdale. While I didnít talk personally to Mr. Watson, I have spoken to Tim Watson who indicates that there is no problem at all. There is a tenant that lives on that property, rather than the property owner.

Mr. Nadaud stated we have a letter here from Mr. Watson, and Iíll read it to you:

"TO: Springdale Zoning and Planning Committee and to whom it may concern:

It has been brought to my attention that a certain party has requested a variance to relocate a certain air-conditioning unit to the west side of the new house being built on Smiley Avenue.

I am the owner of the home located at 468 Smiley. My home is located on the west side of the new construction and where the placement of the air-conditioning unit would be placed if the variance is granted.

Let it be known to all parties involved that I am strongly opposed to the approval of the variance. I feel the noise level of the unit will effect the value and enjoyment of my property.

Thank you for your attention.

 

Alford Watson

Ina Watson 7/18/95 "

Mr. Nadaud continued frankly, I think five feet from the house to the property line is not enough. That is my own viewpoint; the code says you can do that, so we have to abide by the code.

Mr. Hoffman responded the only thing I can suggest to you is that if Mr. Watson has a problem with that, his tenant probably would be the bearer of the problem. I canít imagine it affecting the property value; rumor has it that the house will be torn down.

Mr. Nadaud reported the variance goes with the property. If Mr. Watson decides to sell this home or tear it down and build a new one, whoever buys that home will have to live with that air conditioner next to him.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Seven

VI C DEREK BOONE 464 SMILEY A/C UNIT IN SIDE YARD - continued

Mr. Young asked if Mr. and Mrs. Boone were the owners of the property, and Mr. Hoffman answered they are not the owners of record; they are the owners of the house that is being built. Mr. Young stated then they cannot request a variance, can they? Only the owner of the property can do that. Mr. Hoffman responded they are the owner of record, and Joe Hill, and we also represent Joe Hill. Mr. Young asked Mr. McErlane about this, continuing if the owner is not up here talking, itís a moot point isnít it? Mr. McErlane stated we can have a representative of the owner. Mr. Young asked if we have that in writing, and Mr. McErlane answered I donít think we received anything specifically from Joe Hill other than the site plan he dropped off.

Mrs. McNear said you mentioned there would be shrubbery to block the view of this air conditioning unit, but we are looking at two to three feet, probably two to two and one-half, which doesnít give you very much room for anything to grow in there and you have the possibility of when the shrubbery matures it encroaching on the property next to it anyway. So, even if you do that with some screening, you still will run into a problem.

Mr. Hoffman stated I would let Mr. Boone address that; however, I would tell you too that there is a driveway between the air conditioning unit and the house. Mrs. McNear responded I have been out to the property. If you are encroaching on the property, it doesnít matter whether it is grass or driveway or trees; it is still encroachment.

Mr. Mitchell said trying to move ahead on this matter, what would be the problem with locating the unit at the northeast corner of the house and having it back from the corner so it is not in sight when you are on the patio? If it was around the corner, it wouldnít affect the people here who have the patio on the side of the house, and it wouldnít affect the people in the back yard.

Mr. Hoffman responded I donít think there would be a problem at all. Iím sure the Boones would have no problem with that, but it might bother the people that live here. Mr. Mitchell commented I thought the distance was about 30 feet or so from the patio to this part here. Mr. Hoffman continued it seemed to make sense to tuck it right behind the chimney because the chimney comes out two feet anyway. Mr. Mitchell stated the driveway is right here, and the person parking the car there runs into the side of the unit getting in and out of the car with the unit blowing. I think around the corner would be your best bet. Mr. Hoffman commented I donít think there would be a problem with that.

Mr. Nadaud stated personally I would like to see it placed in a position where it would meet the code, either behind the house or in an area where it would meet the code, so there would not need to be a variance. Mr. Hoffman asked where that would be, and Mr. Nadaud answered 41 and one-half feet is the dimension of the back yard, so there is ample space back there to place an air conditioning unit without infringing upon the code. Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

Mrs. Boice stated I would concur with what you are saying. I think they have the space. I look up and down the streets of my area, and they are all in the back yard; there is no problem. We all realize there is a certain noise level we have to deal with from time to time, so would prefer the back yard.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Eight

VI C DEREK BOONE 464 SMILEY A/C UNIT IN SIDE YARD-continued

Mrs. McNear added I think the way the board is feeling is that it is really too close; Iím not going to speak for everybody but that is the feeling I get. If we deny this, then the air conditioning unit has to go in the rear of the yard; that is within code; we donít have the right to say where they need to place the unit. I think the only answer we need to come up with here is yes or no. If the answer is no, then we have to leave it to the developer or owner to decide where that unit goes.

Mrs. McNear stated I would like to move that we grant the variance to allow for this air conditioning unit to be placed on the side of the house. I would like to further comment that I will be voting no on this, but I want to bring this up so we can get on with the vote. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. On the motion, no one voted aye, and voting no were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Young, and Mr. Blake. Variance was unanimously denied.

D. B. P. Station, 11580 Princeton Pike requests variance to allow the construction of a temporary 8í x 8í x 22í long trailer to house equipment for site cleanup. Variance is requested from Section 153.085(D) "No main or accessory uses shall be permitted in a trailer or other nonpermanent structure."

Steve McNeil of Reliable Construction Services, Dayton Ohio stated BP has given you a written authorization for me to represent them. They have contracted us to install an underground remediation system for the gas station at Princeton Pike and Kemper Road. The remediation system consists of underground piping for liquid extraction for petroleum contaminants and vapor extraction for volatiles in the soil.

Mr. McNeil reported the equipment used to pump and filter the liquids to obtain the petroleum contaminants and also to push vapors through and vacuum them back out require some sort of housing. There are a number of pieces of equipment that have to be used.

Mr. McNeil stated they are requesting a variance to install a temporary 8 foot wide by 8 foot high by 22 foot storage trailer to encompass all the equipment used for this. The storage trailer would be located in the most inconspicuous point on the property, which is back by the trash dumpster. On the south property line, there already is heavy vegetation with some decent size trees and a retaining wall. There also is a building adjacent which has no windows so it is not visible from that side of the property, that south property line. If you are traveling on Princeton Pike or Kemper Road, it is not visible from those roads either. The enclosure is required to house all this equipment; otherwise you would have pumps setting outside and it would look like an industrial site. They tried to pick out the best location on the site.

Mr. McNeil reported when they say temporary trailer, they are talking about two to four years. That is approximately how long it takes. The extraction process for the petroleum contaminants in the ground water and the soil is a very slow process. It goes through a number of carbon filtration systems and it takes a normal monthly maintenance to change the carbon and so on. That would happen until the Ohio Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations relieves them from doing any more cleanup. They have required them to clean up this site as of right now. So, we have to install the system; it is just how do we house the system and what would be best for Springdale and the surrounding community?

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Nine

VI D BP STATION 11580 PRINCETON PIKE - TEMPORARY TRAILER - continued

Mr. McNeil reported what they have done in the past is install these remediation trailers, and then they are able to just lift those off the site at a later date and take them to another site and use that for cleanup.

Mr. Young asked how long does something like this happen per site? You are saying temporary, two to four years, and then is it two more years and another temporary two to four years?

Mr. McNeil answered the underground storage tank regulations have required all tank owners, including oil companies and private individuals, i.e. the mom and pop gas stations, to come in compliance by 1998 to meet new underground storage tank regulations in the way of their specifications, i.e. corrosion resistance, leaf detection and spill containment. When a tank driver is dropping the product into the tanks, they have spill containers (which are already in existence at this site) to catch any product that may come out into this container when he pulls off the hose, and put it back into the tank. That is already existing; the tanks are already corrosion resistant.

Mr. McNeil reported when they went through the process of bringing this up to current regulations in 1993, that is when they were required to do a closure report for the state, and when they did this, it indicated there were some contaminants in the dirt and the water, which the state is now requiring them to clean up. Mr. Young said so there should be no chance...? Mr. McNeil responded I canít guarantee that and they canít guarantee that, but they have taken every precaution that the state and federal government has required them to do by 1998 to prevent any more contaminants in the soil.

Mr. Young asked if Mr. McNeilís company has done this for any other gas stations in or around the Springdale area. Mr. McNeil answered no; we have across the state of Ohio a number of cities, but I donít recall anything in Cincinnati that we have done recently. There may be other installation companies that have done that for environmental companies and other oil companies. Mr. Young continued I guess my question would be is this the first time we have had this happen in Springdale? It is hard for me to believe with all the gas stations we have had over the years.

Mr. McErlane reported this is the first gas station, and that is not to say that we have not had gas stations that were closed down, tanks removed and a lot of soil removed as part of that process. But we also had a remedial effort similar to what is being proposed here at what was the AMC dealership on Northland Boulevard, which is now Recker & Boerger. Fortunately, they had a big vacant place to put all their equipment in and pump it out into the building and do the monitoring.

Mr. Young asked if there were a requirement when they build a gas station that there be some kind of control factor, because now my question is what about the BP Station that was just built? Will that then happen? Mr. McErlane answered there are different tank requirements and monitoring requirements that are in place now for all gas stations. As a matter of fact, any existing gas stations are required to replace their tanks to meet those requirements.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Ten

VI D BP STATION 11580 PRINCETON PK TEMPORARY TRAILER-continued

Mr. McNeil added by 1998, so all the other gas stations in Springdale and all the other communities will have to come in compliance; either remove their tanks and go out of business, remove their tanks and upgrade them. When they remove them, the state requires them sample and analyze the soil and the water. There may be contaminants; there probably will be certain levels of contaminants in the soil. You will not have very many clean sites from the gas stations.

Mr. Young said if we were to vote this down, can we really do that? Mr. McErlane responded the only thing I can think of in terms of voting it down is if they could come back with some other means of providing shelter for their equipment. They have been ordered to clean it up.

Mr. McNeil added it really is for the good of the community; we are trying to protect the environment; BP is trying to clean up their own mess.

Mr. Young asked if there were any danger involved with this equipment; is there any chance of this equipment blowing up? Mr. McNeil answered no, everything is explosion proof. We will have to get an electrical permit, if Springdale issues one. If not, the state issues an electrical permit, and they have a special inspection which takes place to make sure everything is explosion proof and meets electrical codes. All the equipment that houses the extraction process for the joined contaminants are all UL listed for that type of work, so there wonít be any blowing up of the equipment.

Mrs. Boice commented my concern is down the road. When you are doing these sites, if we get in a position like that with the new BP, there is no room to put another flower pot on that lot. When that one was put in, was testing done then? Mr. McNeil answered Iím not familiar with the scope of work at that site. If it was a brand new vacant site, there was no soil testing required. When they built the site, any new site has to meet the new underground storage tank regulations, which provides for leaf detection, corrosion resistance and spill containment.

Mrs. Boice continued you said two to four years, and Mr. McNeil responded that is the estimate in the plan submitted by the environmental company hired to analyze and come up with a cleanup process. Mrs. Boice commented we know the environmental process runs slower than a snail, that is standard. Legally you said we canít refuse this, but I certainly think we can put a term on the variance. I would like to take a look at this on at least a semi-annual basis. I canít sit here and grant a variance for four years, no way. Mr. Young commented I agree with that. Mrs. Boice continued I would want to look at it and see how well our EPA people are doing; maybe thatíll speed them up a bit.

Mr. McErlane added to clarify things, I think what they do is sampling of the ground water. Mr. McNeil added on a monthly basis they sample the vapors and water in the monitoring wells existing on the site. This site probably has 20-some monitoring wells due to the fact that they try to narrow down where the containments are on the site.

Mrs. Boice said if they say two to four years, perhaps they can get the work done in two years. Mr. McNeil responded theyíre not going to run it any more than they have to, because it costs them an annual fee to maintain this, and all the equipment costs a lot of money for BP. They are going to want to get it out of there as soon as possible.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Eleven

VI D BP STATION 11580 PRINCETON PIKE TEMPORARY TRAILER-continued

Mr. McNeil stated the estimation by the environmental company was two to four years. BP told me they donít expect to have it there for more than two years.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant a temporary variance for two years.

Mr. Mitchell commented I am sure the building will be ventilated and painted BP colors. Mr. McNeil reported the color BP normally does their remediation trailers is an earth tone gray to match their BP gray, so it blends in. Mr. Mitchell continued my concern is that this building is ventilated in housing equipment and chemicals and whatever. Also, please take into consideration the location of a restaurant next door to you and a fresh air intake located anywhere in the vicinity of this new storage building. Mr. McNeil responded the vapor that is let off into the atmosphere meets all EPA and state regulations; it is required to. The equipment they put in this unit cannot let any more than what is allowed in the typical vent stacks, if you have an underground storage tank that you probably vent while you are filling the tanks. The vapors that are let our in one of these remediation systems are not allowed to be any higher than that also. It is required to meet the new EPA regulations. Mr. Mitchell stated I am concerned about the storage room, the vapors from that. Donít you have a lot of equipment and gasoline? Mr. McNeil confirmed this adding that there are vents put in the side of the trailer to ventilate the inside of the unit. We will have to submit permits for all the piping and electrical to the City of Springdale to get their approval. It would have to meet the local requirements and restrictions they have. It will be ventilated and winterized so there is no freezing of the equipment in the winter. They insulate the inside of the trailer and have electric heaters to keep the temperature so none of the water will freeze.

Mrs. McNear stated I would like to second Mrs. Boiceí motion if she would care to amend it that the storage facility be in good repair if it is going to be there two to four years. Ms. Boice said thank you; I couldnít have said it better; please amend my motion.

Mr. Nadaud said you have done this before; in laymanís terms, how do you do this; do you have to remove soil to do this?

Mr. McNeil responded all the soil that will be removed will be tested and hauled to a state-approved landfill for petroleum contaminated soil. Mr. Nadaud added my concern is how do they extract petroleum from soil without actually removing the soil and purifying it? Mr. McNeil answered based on the contaminant levels that were submitted on the lab results in this report, the levels would lead them to believe that a system or process called soil vapor extraction would loosen up and remove the petroleum contaminants. What that does is blow air through the soil and suck it back out, run the air through a filtration system and vent the clean air to the atmosphere. Mr. Nadaud said so you have to have a tool to dig down into the soil. Mr. McNeil answered yes, when we come to install the system, we have to install PVC piping through a number of wells over the whole site underground, and we will be backfilling and asphalting over those PVC pipes. There will be whatís called SVE piping, which is basically slotted PVC piping that will allow the blowing of the air into the soil and sucking it back out. That will be underground and asphalted over; you wonít see any of the underground piping or electrical conduit on the site. You will only see the trailer; all the piping goes up underneath the trailer and into the trailer itself, so you wouldnít see anything else.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Twelve

VI D. BP STATION 11580 PRINCETON PK - TEMPORARY TRAILER - continued

Mr. Nadaud asked if this were a proven process, and Mr. McNeil confirmed that it was, adding you have a copy of the letter from the Ohio Department of Commerce approving their proposed remediation system at this site. Mr. Nadaud asked if it were going to look like a construction site for the next two to four years? Mr. McNeil answered no, if it takes longer than four weeks to install the system, we lose money. We have to do it while they are operating is the problem, so weíll have to do certain pieces and then other pieces. Once the underground piping is in, we can connect it all up to the equipment on the inside of the trailer, but they donít allow us to keep them out of operation any more than they have to. We will be in and out of there as fast as we can. Once the system is in operation, it will be monitored on a monthly basis by the environmental company or whoever BP contracts with to take samples.

Mr. Young asked if he were required by law to post what you are doing? Mr. McNeil answered only whatever the permitting requirements are for the local municipalities.

On the motion to grant the variance, voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Young and Mr. Blake. A two-year variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

F. Lena Mares, Project Manager, Maple Knoll Village requests variance to allow the installation of a satellite antenna 12.5 feet in height and 12í in diameter. Variance is requested from Section 153.097(C)(2) "..does not exceed 8 feet in height and (3) "...does not exceed 6 feet in diameter."

Ms. Mares said I would like to give you a historical perspective and bring you up to date. Presently most of our buildings are wired by Warner Cable for cable reception, and we assumed our 80 new cottages and 60-bed assisted living building also would be wired. In the past, Warner-Cable did that for the business, but this time, they said they would not do it unless we paid the installation cost which was quite high and that we would put the wiring in all the resident units and the residences of these new facilities would have to take basic cable and be charged for it. We tried to reason with them; we approached the regulatory commission to see if they couldnít help us, and it came down to we would pay the fee or we would not get cable.

Ms. Mares continued then we found out through our state association of retirement facilities that a number of facilities of our type across the state are going with a private cable system. Considering the alternative and the amount that needed to be paid, it made sense for us to explore this. The private cable option allows us to do two things, to provide high quality cable reception, all local channels plus 11 additional cable channels to the residents throughout the facility. It also allows us to provide a communication system to broadcast daily events, and special programming to all the residents and telecast chapel services and other services in the auditorium. Also it brings the price down so we would not have to charge the residents a monthly fee. All of our buildings would be connected through this communication system.

Ms. Mares reported the reason the satellite exceeds the requirement is that this is a commercial quality system. This is the smallest unit that would give us the kinds of reception that we need for the resident. If we didnít get this larger system, we would have to go with at least two to three smaller satellite dishes that would meet the code, but would not give us the type of reception we would like to have.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Thirteen

VI E MAPLE KNOLL VILLAGE VARIANCE FOR SATELLITE ANTENNA - continued

Ms. Mares stated there is also available a satellite feed that would allow us to provide continuing education opportunities and credits for all of our staff, and we want to explore that and add that to it as well. That is not what we are starting with, but we do want to add that.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the unit is already in place? Ms. Mares answered it is up on the building, yes. My understanding is with a little time it will oxidize and not be quite as shiny and noticeable as it is. The height of the installed satellite does not exceed the height of the elevator penthouse.

Mr. Young commented from a personal viewpoint, since this variance will go with the property, there probably is not much doubt that Mapleknoll will be there for as long as we all are alive if not longer. I certainly donít have a problem with it. Having both my parents in residence homes, I know it is important to have activities and be involved in things, and this sounds like a great thing to have.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Blake. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

F. Wilton Blake, 695 Glensprings Drive requests variance to allow the construction of a 12í x 12í utility building 3 feet from property line. Variance is requested from Section 153.024(C) "..Located not less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines", and Section 153.036 "..shall not exceed 120 square feet".

Mr. Blake stated there is at present a storage shed that has been there since I moved here in 1977. It is beginning to deteriorate, and we are requesting to tear down the existing utility shed and put up a 12í x 12í shed. The code says we can have a 10í x 12í shed, which is 120 square feet; the 12í x 12í is 144 square feet, so we are asking for a variance of 24 square feet. According to the code a shed should be five feet from the property line, and we are asking for three feet. I have a privacy wall in the back, and if it comes over any further, there wonít be any room between the shed and the privacy wall, and it wonít be very secure. Three feet is very workable; as a matter of fact, the existing shed is up against the fence, so we need to come out some.

Mrs. Boice commented the 24 square feet doesnít bother me at all with the size of the lot; I donít have any problem with that.

Mr. Nadaud asked if there were any reason why this has to be 12í x 12í? Mr. Blake answered with what I have in there now, I canít get everything in; I have a trash compactor setting on the outside, and I plan to get a riding mower. That would allow me to put the riding mower in there and everything would be secure and neat.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance as requested, for a 12í x 12í utility building set 3 feet from the property line. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Schecker. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 July 1995

Page Fourteen

VII. DISCUSSION

 

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:50 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________,1995 _______________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

 

_______________________,1995_________________________

Wilton Blake, Secretary