Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

7:00 p.m.


The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman James Squires.


Members Present: Councilwomen Near and Marge Boice, Thomas

Schecker, David Okum, Barbara Ewing and Chairman


Others Present: Building Official Bill McErlane


Because the members did not receive copies of the Minutes, the approval

was tabled until the October meeting.


A. Report on Council Activities

Mrs. Boice stated that the proposed Target Store will be considered at the October 15th meeting.

B. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum stated Duke Associates requested approval of the sign

package for Tri-County Market Place at 11741 Princeton Pike (former Swallenís). The applicant was surprised that Planning was not in favor of considering signage at this time and it was denied. It is unusual to consider a signage request when we havenít seen the preliminary or final site plan. It would have been referred to BZA had we approved it.


A. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of six months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.

If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after denial.


A. BP ProCare, 11725 Princeton Pike requests a variance to allow the construction of a ground sign 1í from right of way line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "..A ground sign...shall be 10 feet from a street right of way line..."

Bob Carpenter, CSS Sign Company said Mr. Jones has consulted a professional landscaper and has the landscaping plan for your review.

Mr. Jones showed the landscape plan, adding we want to put the sign here, take out all the trees and gravel that is there and plant topsoil and flowers and nicer bushes on the ends. We would take the trees here and add one of them here and the other here. That would square it up better, and we wouldnít be losing any trees.

Mr. Squires commented if 747 ever were to be widened, this would have a very negative effect on your sign as proposed. Mr. Jones responded if the City deemed it necessary to push the sign back, we would have to move it. I would not mind it if they had to purchase it back, we would have to move it later. Mr. Okum commented that is contract zoning and we cannot do that.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Two


Mr. Okum asked the depth of the existing pavement to where the sign would be placed? Mr. Carpenter said we were with the owners of the property trying to pick different places for the sign, and Mr. Gilhart suggested the height. We are well off the road and if the road remains as it is, that is a favorable place for the sign to be and not interfere with the ingress or egress of the shopping center.

Mr. Okum asked how many feet closer to the right of way line would the sign be moved? Mr. Carpenter answered actually we are moving it back the other way; we are going back with a smaller sign. Mr. Okum commented at the last meeting you mentioned the row of signs being at the same distance from the street. Mr. Carpenter stated by lowering the sign it becomes a different type of sign which requires more setback. That is why we are here for a variance. If this were a pole sign and we were applying for a bigger sign, there would be no problem with the location of the sign. The problem comes with it being a ground sign.

Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding that zero setback is permitted for pole signs.

Mr. Okum wondered how the landscaping in front would be maintained. Mr. Carpenter responded Mr. Jones addressed that with having these professional people design this and he himself will maintain it. Mr. Jones added we have somebody who comes in and keeps the building clean, and he will cut the grass and maintain the landscaped area. Mr. Okum asked if it were his intent to maintain it and keep it in the same order that you are submitting it and Mr. Jones confirmed this.

Mrs. Boice said if in the process of moving the two trees they are damaged, would you then replace them? Mr. Jones indicated that he would.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.


A. Cincinnati Bell requests a variance to allow construction of a walk-in cabinet 45í from West Crescentville Road right of way and 123í from the east property line at 255 West Crescentville Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.104(A)(1) "Be set back not less than 100 feet from the front street right of way line" and 153.104(A)(3) "Be set back from its side lot line not less than 25 feet...."

Tom Fernandez of SFA Architects stated I am representing Cincinnati Bell, and Dick Selm is here from Cincinnati Bell to answer any technical questions.

Mr. Squires asked what is a walk in closet and Mr. Fernandez answered it contains all the electronic equipment that converts the light to electricity. It is the fiber optic hub that will be serving your area. It represents a $300,000 investment to be able to provide more functions and serve the growth especially in the business community.

Mr. Squires continued in addition to this there also is a manhole that has to be constructed very near this. Mr. Fernandez confirmed this, adding right next to the building there is an underground manhole that serves to bring the cable into the structure. It is where fiber optic cable converts to the more traditional copper cable.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Three


Mrs. McNear wondered how many you need to service an area this size? Mr. Fernandez answered it depends on the businesses. We will have some areas that have two or three, and others that will have much more because of the intensity and the types of services that area demands.

Mrs. Boice commented last year you were in for an installation of one of these on Kenn Road. There was a lot of discussion about landscaping around it, and a couple of months ago Mr. Mitchell mentioned that this has never been shrubbed. That is almost a year ago, and for you to bring in this picture with the shrubs around there, I am turned off immediately because you havenít done what you told us you would do with the first installation.

Mr. Fernandez responded you are 100% right. We at Cincinnati Bell dropped the ball, and we have to offer an apology to you. It was only after Bill called us and reminded us of the landscaping commitment that some of the landscaping has been incorporated. It is my understanding that Bill has been by the site and is satisfied with the installation. I do apologize and to be honest with you, we are embarrassed about that situation.

Mr. Okum said having not been on the board last year, what was your intent to do with the landscaping? Mr. Fernandez responded each site has to be evaluated separately, and in that particular case we were bordering on a residential area and at the corner of a church property. It was much more visible. Since then we have tried to locate easement areas that allow us to put the equipment, preferably in areas that are more business or industrial and that is what we have tried to find here on Crescentville Road and the corner of Avon Drive. Because of the situation that happened last time, we are here to satisfy you. If you tell us to put in three trees, weíll put in three; if you tell us to put in five, weíll put in five. The topography of it is such that when you are traveling east on Crescentville Road it is higher here and there is a lot of vegetation so it is not extremely noticeable. However when you travel west on Crescentville Road even though the pine tree does help it still will be visible.

The unit is approximately 5 feet in height, and we are proposing a small access drive to pull in the trucks. The underground manhole would be located adjacent to the cabinet on the south part of the easement side.

We have checked with our landscaping company, and they are saying that there are evergreens that we can install even in early November so it can be this year versus next year. We are proposing at least four evergreens on the north side of the drive, and three next to the hut to screen it. The principle difference between the last time and this time is we have done a better job in finding a location that this would not be as intrusive and awkward.

Mr. Okum wondered if it is necessary for the pad for the manhole to be in front of the building. Mr. Fernandez answered that it was because that is where the cable comes in. Mr. Okum wondered where the mechanicals would be and Mr. Fernandez answered all services are underground . We have a little unit that sets on the south side to maintain the interior environment. Mr. Okum asked if they own the property, and Mr. Fernandez stated it is an easement that Cincinnati Bell has acquired. Mr. Okum said if someone would develop the western portion of that site, they would be looking at your box. Mr. Fernandez confirmed this, adding that this is a three to our foot difference in elevation, and an agreement would have to be made if there would be future development. Right now there is a natural barrier.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Four



Mr. Okum continued obviously if that does develop it would come before Planning Commission or this board and we would have to hear that issue at that time. Mr. Fernandez responded the way we dropped the ball the last time, and if that is a condition you re looking for, we would have no problem with it. Mr. Okum asked if they were removing any trees, and Mr. Fernandez answered there are two or three that are being removed. Mr. Okum wondered if they were being replaced, and Mr. Fernandez stated that is why we are suggesting we go with the evergreens so we have an all year barrier.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum asked the tree count of what is being removed and replaced. Mr. McErlane responded as it stands right now there are three trees that have been removed, two 10 inch ash and one 12 or 14 inch hackberry. Mr. Okum commented those are all hardwoods so that is 32 inches and 16 inches of replacement is required, is that correct? Mr. McErlane responded actually public utilities are exempt from that requirement.

Mrs. Boice said how can that tree removal already have taken place when they are applying for a variance? Mr. McErlane responded I donít know; I visited the site about a month ago, and they were gone. Mrs. Boice said this is very distressing to me. As to the Kenn Road you say they now have landscaped it. Mr. McErlane added they had landscaped it several months ago, but it took better than a year to get it landscaped the way they had promised. The problem that we had was that the original person from Cincinnati Bell who had presented it was no longer in that division, and the information dropped.

Mr. Okum said our city planner has an urban landscape architect on staff. If it took a year for your landscaping to be established, obviously you are not really equipped in that field. Certainly a blend of evergreens and something like burning bush type ornamentation helps to screen, but if this were to be approved, I would encourage the board to require the 16 caliper inches of replacement around this unit that would bring you in conformance with our tree replacement ordinance. Also I would suggest you get with our city planner and discuss the type landscaping that would be appropriate to the environment or submit a plan for them to review and approve.

Mr. Fernandez responded if that is a condition, we have no problem with it. We have already contracted with Davey Tree Service so you could be assured that it will be done even if Iím not here two or three months down the road. We also will make sure that Bill is aware of the channels and people to call but I donít expect to have a situation where you need to call us. Hopefully we will be doing a better job this time.

Mrs. McNear said the last time your company came in here I said the building looks like a mausoleum and it still does look like it. A lot of utilities are putting towers inside church steeples and making towers look like trees. Is there something to eliminate the harshness of this building other than putting landscaping around it?

Mr. Fernandez answered this unit is a little more attractive than some of the previous that you have seen which are metal structures. I think Cincinnati Bell is improving and looking towards that, but function is such an important part of these units, especially when you are putting $300,000 of switching equipment inside it, that function many times dictates the appearance. The only option we would have is to put some type siding on it, and our biggest concern would be long term maintenance of some covering, so that has been discussed.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Five


Mrs. McNear responded it is better than some of the rusted out metal buildings, but it still looks like a mausoleum and we are concerned about the aesthetics of it. This is heavily wooded at this time but you mentioned if there is future development there; I assure you there will be future development, and we want to make sure we donít have to look at another mausoleum. How many more of these will we have in Springdale? This is the second one in a year.

Mr. Selm stated this would accommodate 2,016 telephone lines, so it will provide twice as many as present. Mrs. McNear commented so we are looking at a lot more considering the amount of development going into this area. She wondered if there were any way to add additional lines in the facility, adding she would rather see one longer one than have them dotted throughout the city like postage stamps all over every subdivision. Mr. Selm responded we feel this enclosure will last a long time based on the growth, and we would not put them in close proximity. Mrs. McNear asked if he knew of plans for another one in Springdale, and Mr. Selm answered no, adding that this one would serve Crescentville Road from S.R. 747 west to Route 4 and south on Route 4 to Best Western.

Mr. Fernandez added at this point there are no plans for additional units. However, we donít know the kind of growth you will see in your community. This will handle a lot of the growth we would anticipate, but there might be a situation where 2-4 years from now we might be in front of you again.

Mr. Okum wondered if this would handle your potential future TV audio computer internetting system? Mr. Selm answered yes, we are putting in next generation digital carrier, which is equipped for future electronics.

Mr. Squires said earlier Mrs. Boice commented on the fact that one of these was put up a year and a half ago and the landscaping around that has not been done; you said Cincinnati Bell dropped the ball on that? Mr. Fernandez answered before we came in here I called Bill and extended our apologies. Quite honestly I just found out about the problem within the last few days. Cincinnati Bell did not do the landscaping in a timely fashion. It was only after Bill contacted someone at Cincinnati Bell that the landscaping was completed. Cincinnati Bell stated if there was a problem with that landscaping plan, if additional landscaping is required, we truly want to be a good neighbor and we will accommodate the cityís request.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the following conditions:

(1) that 16 caliper inches of tree replacement be required;

(2) that the unit is fully landscaped as depicted with a variety of landscaping as approved by the city planner;

Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Mrs. Ewing said your box was unsightly looking, but after a while people get so used to it, it becomes a part of the scenery. When I drive by tonight and tomorrow, I will look and see if the landscaping is there, because whatever landscaping you put there did not attract any attention to it. That ugly looking box was there, and any landscaping has not added to the aesthetics of that box.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Six


Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mrs. McNear said when someone is building in the city, we have an occupancy permit. Is there something we can do to make sure we donít go a year without landscaping again? I wonder if we can keep them from flipping the switch on it until it is the way we want it to be. I donít doubt his sincerity that he is going to make sure this happens, but frankly I doubted the sincerity that the landscaping would happen when we approved it the last time. Mr. Okum commented we are facing the same thing on the AT&T tower; none of the evergreens have been placed. Mr. McErlane commented in that particular instance there was construction going on all around it that impacted it. Dick has contacted them about it.

Mr. Fernandez said we have contracted with Davey Tree in order to get the landscaping, and itís pretty much an open ended contract at this time. If we provide Bill with evidence of that contract as well as a contact at Davey Tree, that might help get things moving and you would know the installer as well as the owner of the property. I donít think it should be a burden on the City to make sure that happens, but I want to make sure that you are sure that we will be accountable. Mr. Okum commented part of my motion is that it go through the City Planner for landscaping approval and tree replacement. Mr. Fernandez responded that was the initial plan, but the issue is how do we insure that it is actually in place. Mr. Okum wondered if he agreed not to start it up until the landscaping is in the place? Mr. Selm said when you say start it up, ...Mr. Okum answered flip the switch. CG&E has to do their connections. Mr. Fernandez continued if it is typical of other boxes, there is a period of about two or three months of wiring work that goes on before it is flipped on. Mr. Okum said then you will have plenty of time to get the landscaping in place. Mr. Fernandez said it is our intent once the unit is up and ready to turn it around as quickly as possible to prove the point here. Mrs. McNear added we donít want to have the landscaping installed because you are coming in to add another box.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires asked if he understood the amended variance and Mr. Fernandez answered that he did, adding that there is no problem with being in compliance with it.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Maple Knoll Village, 11199 Springfield Pike requests a variance to allow the display of an 18" x 24" sign each Sunday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Big Band Dance). Said variance is requested from Section 153.066 "Accessory signs in..PF-2..Districts..shall be designed, accordance with the regulations provided in this section".

Alvin Ort, Manger of the WMKV Big Band Dance said we would like to display this sign each Sunday from 9 to 4. We need to attract more people to come to the dance. We have gotten a lot of calls saying that they do not know where to turn and come in. It not only is a fund raiser but it is something for our seniors to look forward to each Sunday.

Mr. Okum it seems like Maple Knoll needs to get information out. A month land a half ago we approved a sign for the Bingo. Your intentions are worthy, but I donít know if we can handle a lot morel signs. It almost looks like real estate along Route 4. Maybe there is something Maple Knoll needs to look at, something long term for information. Are you requesting an indefinite variance?



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Seven


Mr. Ort responded the Bingo sign that you approved is half inch black angle, and the sign fits in it. They put it up the day of the Bingo and take it down otherwise. We would use their half inch angle. It wonít be in addition to what is there; it is the same location, same frame and a different sign

Mrs. Boice commented it is two months ago that we granted a variance for a Bingo sign. I am concerned with the request for another sign. The Bingo sign was requested for Thursday and Friday, and you are requesting this for Sunday. Has there been any discussion with Maple Knoll Village for them to design or incorporate some permanent attractive message board type thing?

Mr. Ort answered I donít know if they are or not. I am only concerned with the dance part of it. Mrs. Boice said you must understand where we are coming from. Two months ago it was the Bingo, now itís the dance and pretty soon somebody might be in here because they are not using the swimming pool enough etc. etc. It can be a domino effect. We are very tough on signs throughout the City. Mr. Ort continued I would be more than happy to get in touch with the right people and tell them your concerns. I appreciate that; I wouldnít want the street to look like a carnival with signs all over the place, and I will bring it up with the right people.

Mr. Ort added right now in terms of the dance, we are in a survival mode. Putting on a Sunday dance and getting enough to make a profit to help the radio is pretty hard, because the 14 piece live band is pretty expensive. Although they give us a break because we are a senior center and non-profit, you still have to get a lot of people in there to make a profit. If we could get that little sign out there, that would help us out.

Mr. McErlane said I would suggest that the board consider a limited variance for a limited period of time and allow Maple Knoll to look at the possibility of a permanent sign.

Mr. Schecker added I would agree with that. I do not believe this should be a permanent variance.

Mrs. Boice said I was going to suggest granting a six month variance to see if the sign is helping. Mr. Okum just suggested that we give the time on that to expire at the same time the Bingo sign expires. The Bingo sign was granted a nine-month variance, so instead of six months, that would give them a seven month variance, and they both would be up for review at the same time and perhaps in the meantime Maple Knoll might come up with something more concrete. I think once we start this, we will have a rash for every function that happens.

Mrs. Boice said I would move that a variance be granted for seven months and be subject for review at that time. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Schecker said you need to go back and carry the message to the administrators to look at some centralized plan to do the signing desired for that operation. Mr. Ort said I will do that and I also will come back and give you an accurate report.

Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted for seven months, to expire April, 1998.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Eight

C. Mr. Robert Schindler, 594 Cloverdale Avenue requests variance to construct a 24í x 28í detached garage 3í from the side lot line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(F) "A garage shall be..not more than 600 square feet" and from Section 153.023(C) "Any accessory building..may be located in a rear yard but must not be less than 5í from any rear or side lot lines."

Mr. Robert Schindler stated I want to build a two-car garage to replace a garage that is falling down and a car port.

Mr. Squires said I notice quite a few neighbors have signed this for you. Have any voiced any opposition at all to this? Mr. Schindler answered no. Addressing the audience, Chairman Squires asked if there were anyone here with any opposition to this? No one responded.

Mr. Okum commented I have one concern about your request. If you notice the residence at 600, if you locate your garage back an extra 34 feet, their view from the rear of their home will be nothing but the side of your garage. I know currently your garage is closer to your home, so their view is sort of lateral but if they are looking out towards the back, that wall will be shifted to the rear. Is there a special reason for this?

Mr. Schindler responded if I bring this thing up I would landlock the back of my property, and there are 600 feet back there. You canít get back with any kind of truck to do any work back there. Everybody that comes in now comes in through my property. The people three doors up from me canít get in their back yard with a vehicle other than a lawn mower.

Mr. Okum said you have 20í-10" and your existing garage is approximately 10 feet and the proposed is 24 feet. If you would bring it up as far forward as your existing garage, I can understand your position that it would be difficult to bring a vehicle between your garage and your house. On the other hand, since you are requesting that the garage be three feet off the property line, your neighbor will look at the side of your garage. Mr. Schindler stated my neighbor is here.

Mr. Okum asked what he would side the garage with, and Mr. Schindler answered vinyl siding. Mr. Okum asked if there would be a single overhead door and Mr. Schindler answered I will go to a single 16 foot overhead door. Mr. Okum wondered if there would be any side door into it and Mr. Schindler answered there is one with the kit, but I am changing that to a single door instead of two doors and it will be eight foot instead of seven foot. Mr. Schindler added it will be 16 foot high but it needs to be eight foot wide because of the conversion van.

Mr. Squires said we are looking at two variances, one for the garage itself because it is 72 feet over, and the other for the setback, 3 feet from the property line.

Mrs. Boice commented with the amount of property you are working with, I am having a little trouble understanding why you canít be within the five foot requirement.

Mr. Schindler answered if I continue on line where the garage sets right now, that carport I poured in the Ď80ís will be part of my approach to the new garage.

Mr. Schecker addressing the resident from 600 CLoverdale wondered what his feeling is about the existing garage and where it sets with respect to your house versus this proposed new garage.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Nine


The neighbor answered either/or, wherever Bob wants to put it doesnít make any difference to me. He would rather put it back in the same

region as he said, because there is no way I can get in my back yard unless I go through Bobís. Neither neighbor on either side of me can go back unless we go through his yard.

Mr. Okum wondered what he needs to go back there for? Mr. Schindler answered there is an acre of ground back there with everybodyís lot. The neighbor added I have 400 feet beyond the house to the back of the line.

Mr. Okum added I have no problem with the size of the garage considering the size of the lot, but I still have a problem with pushing the garage back that far on the site. I think if it were four to five feet deeper setback, you would have ample access to the rear lot without the garage setting any further back for the rest of the neighborsí view. I know his next door neighbor is here and has not expressed any concern, but that gentleman might not own it five years from now.

Mr. Schindler said if I bring it up that far Iíll be within six feet of his house again. The neighbor added there is five and one-half to six feet between his garage and my house right now. Mr. Schindler said if I go back to the end of that slab, I am past where his house turns. He has a window there that is looking into my garage right now. Mr. Okum said so your feeling is his view out the side of his home would be unobstructed. Mr. Schindler answered yes, if I moved it back. If I bring it up, he still will be looking at the side of a garage.

Mr. Schecker commented normally the consideration of line of sight is very strong. However, when you look at your existing structure with respect to your house, it seems it would enhance the houseís value a great deal more to have this set back where it is rather than side by side. Looking out on of his windows to the garage right on top of him doesnít seem too attractive to me.

Mr. Okum said I would encourage the five foot setback on your garage. I think you need to get at least five feet, because it looks like the garage belongs more to your neighbor than to you. Are you intending to reconcrete your driveway? Mr. Schindler answered not at this time; I will pay for the garage first. Mr. Squires continued do you eventually plan to pave your driveway? Mr. Schindler answered eventually. I have been there 25 years, and it hasnít bothered me.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Schecker said if the board insisted on five feet from the property line, what would that do to you? Mr. Schindler answered I would have to move it over two more feet and probably would run into the foundation of a swimming pool I filled in years ago. There was a 20 x 30 foot inground pool there when I bought the house that was crumbling and I filled it in, so the walls still are underground. Mr. Okum commented if you are going to be excavating for a footer with your new garage, you could hit it. Mr. Schindler responded I wonít hit it where it is now because I know where the pool was. If I move it two feet to the east, I will run into it.

Mrs. McNear commented it seems you looked at all the aspects of what you could do and took your neighbors into consideration. You do have hardship with the swimming pool and access and you have a large enough lot to move this garage back, so I would move to grant the variance as requested. Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Ten

D. Mr. Dave Whitaker, 687 Cloverdale Avenue requests variance to construct a 24í x 24í room addition 28í from the rear property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must be at least 40í deep."

Mr. Whitaker passed out information to the members.

Mrs. Boice stated to clarify, we are looking at a 12 foot differential. The addition did bring you to 28 feet from the rear property line and the requirement is 40 feet. Have all your neighbors that have signed the application seen your plans? Mr. Whitaker answered yes, and I had two others sign who I thought might be affected by this, because there would be somewhat of a westerly view of it, but not very much because of the mature trees.

Mr. Whitaker continued the neighbors have expressed very much interest in this because as you can see from my top picture, in May of 1994 when we bought the house it was barren; there was only a couple of scrub bushes there. Iíve spent a lot of time and money trying to upgrade the property and the addition I propose would be in brick to match the existing structure. Mr. Whitaker passed the pictures around.

Mr. Whitaker added on the drawing showing the east elevation, the deck was removed from the drawing so you could see the proposed building structure.

Mrs. Boice commented looking at the pictures and what he is planning, it still leaves him what I feel would be an adequate setback, so I would move that the variance be granted. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Schecker said I really donít have a concern with your rear neighbor, but I have some concern with the side neighbor since you are jutting out quite a bit. It is quit disproportionate and I do have some reservations about that. First of all, I do want to congratulate you on your property; it is a lovely piece of property and obviously has been taken very nice care of. The house is not all that big and you donít have a basement do you? Mr. Whitaker responded we have a basement, and the ceiling height is such that I almost have to duck to get in. The 1300 square feet is just the main floor. If it were an option of finishing the basement, I would do it. Mr. Schecker wondered if he had considered one room at 12 foot depth in the back one on the side? Mr. Whitaker answered 12 feet doesnít gain anything, and with the cost of the excavation I canít justify the expense. I have looked at all the aspects; I am a builder myself and the 24í x 24í is the most feasible for the area. Anything other than what I have suggested involves moving the kitchen and the cost then would be exorbitant.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Blankenshipís property is the closest to the setback; what is his setback from his side lot line? Mr. Whitaker answered he has 70 feet and the proposed addition is 29 feet off so it would be almost 100 feet from his house.

Mr. Okum commented based on what has been submitted, the care that has been taken, the placement and the density on the site, the use of the land, I canít say no to this application, especially with the proximity of the other properties adjoining it. I do not think this would be a burden on the other property owners in any way, so I will be voting in favor of this request.

Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Okum left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Eleven

E. Arthur Tiedke, 11830 Lawnview Avenue requests a variance to enclose an existing covered roof area with a screened enclosure and floor. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must be at least 35 feet deep."

The applicant was not present and Mrs. Boice moved to table. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion, and it was tabled to the October meeting.

F. Frederick Borden, 8989 Summerfield Lane requests variance to construct an 8í x 8í utility building 24" from the rear property line and 51" from the side lot line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(C) "An accessory building..may be located in a rear yard but not less than 5í from any rear or side lot lines."

Mrs. Boice asked if this were a replacement shed, and Mr. Borden indicated that it was not. Mr. Schecker asked about the property behind his, and Mr. Borden indicated that it is I-275. Mrs. Boice wondered if the shed was in place, and Mr. Borden confirmed this, adding that his builder didnít measure. Mrs. Boice asked if it were on a foundation, and Mr. Borden said it is on blocks, and would be awfully hard to move. Mrs. Boice commented that it looked uneven. Mr. Borden said it might be the picture; it is pretty level. As you can see, there is not much room to bring it in any more. I have two feet setback, so I couldnít get the five feet there. Mrs. Boice commented this is just a personal observation, but Iíd call your builder back; I swear that building is tilting. Mr. Schecker said the problem is that there is a grade there and it is setting on the top so it doesnít look all that level. Mr. Borden said it is level.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

G. Quality Gold, 75 Tri-County Parkway requests variance to allow for a temporary office trailer for the period of 9/18/97 through 1/15/98. Said variance is requested from Section 153.083(C) "No main or accessory use shall be permitted in a trailer..."

Mrs. Boice said in reading the materials that had been presented, I was not clear as to what you are doing.

Mr. Michael Langhammer, son of the owner of the property stated we moved into the building in November of 1992. We had about seven employees and we now have 25 employees. We have looked into adding on to the building. It is not feasible for us to do this. Early this your we worked on finding a location in Springdale and couldnít find one. We are constructing a building in Fairfield, and plan on moving into it in February. This is something I would not be coming back to you with next year. We own the building, and we arenít sure if we will sell it or lease it or we might use it for our own purposes. We are planning on hiring approximately 15 employees, some full time and others part time but they will be permanent employees. It would be possible for me to put all of my people into my building if it wasnít for the Christmas season coming up. I am in the wholesale jewelry business and we sell out of a catalog. I ship to jewelers across the country, and presently am shipping about 250 packages a day. That will increase at Christmas to 1200 to 1300 packages a day. To have my additional customer service people in the building, and my additional shipping needs, it doesnít quite fit. It is a possibility for us to find office space in the area, but I have gotten quotes on what it would cost to do that. The space is the cheaper part of it; connecting my office with my remote office would be approximately $30,000 with some additional monthly charges.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 September 1997

Page Twelve


Mr. Langhammer continued if you were to grant the variance, we would be more than happy to do whatever you wanted. I could even bring in temporary landscaping around it. This option is a very inexpensive one for us. We are not a big corporation; it is a family owned business and $30,000 is a lot of money to us. Whatever restrictions you would put on us we would comply with. I know there are certain fire codes I would abide by. When I submitted my original plan to you, I was going to have it beside the building, and I since have been told that I have to have it a certain distance away from the building, which will comply with. We own approximately 1.19 acres so I have land beside and behind me to do this.

Mrs. Boice said I notice that your request is you would like it granted from September 18 through January 15th. You said you are building in Fairfield d right now and when are you supposed to be in the building? Mr. Langhammer answered my builder indicates February, but once I pass December 24 or 31st I have no further need for that extra space. Mrs. Boice said so the employees that are coming on will be part time. Mr. Langhammer said no, we need more space to do some shipping but we have never laid off an employee. In the new building we have parking for 60 employees and will not lay anyone off. We are a growing company.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Mrs. McNear voted no, and the variance was granted with three affirmative votes.



Mr. Schecker moved to adjourn and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1997 _______________________

James Squires, Chairman



______________________,1997 ________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary