BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
17 OCTOBER 2006
7:00 P.M.


I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:04 by Chairman David Okum.

II. ROLL CALL   

Members Present:    Robert Weidlich, William Reichert, James Squires, Jane Huber, Robert Emerson,
    Marjorie Harlow and Chairman Okum

Others Present:    William K. McErlane, Building Official

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2006

Mrs. Huber moved to approve and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the minutes were adopted unanimously.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Zoning Bulletin – September 10, 2006
B. Zoning Bulletin – September 25, 2006
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – September 12, 2006

VI. REPORTS

A. Report on Council

Mr. Squires and Mrs. Harlow reported that the Taste of Springdale was a success despite the terrible weather, and they are thinking of doing it again. The dedication of the Springdale Elementary School was very nice and the new school is outstanding.


B. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum reported that Lowe’s conditional use permit for outside display was approved with a number of conditions. They will restore the landscaping to what was approved originally and are allowed to put seasonal stock on the side of the outdoor enclosure from March through September. The Christmas Tree Lot Sale at Tri-County Mall was approved. The medical/professional site at 242-252 West Sharon Road along with a coffee shop/deli at 11093 Springfield Pike preliminary development plans were approved and recommended to Council as well as the addition of transitional overlay for both sites. This is a really classy look and should be a very nice entry point for the city.

Mrs. Harlow reported I am on the Board of Health, and Issues 4 and 5 will be on the ballot this year. Both are smoking issues. I would encourage everyone to do their homework before going to the polls.


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
17 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE TWO

VII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS

VIII. OLD BUSINESS

IX. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of variance to allow the placement of a utility building closer than 5 feet from the property line at 746 Glensprings Drive. Said variance is requested from Section 153.082(B) “…must not be less than five feet from any rear or side lot line.”

Kenneth Harris, owner of the property reported in June I removed the existing wooden shed which was dry rotted and termite infested and put up a plastic and vinyl shed on the cement slab.

I was not aware that I needed a building permit and I did get one later. The shed looks much better, is safer and we have more storage. It enhances the value of the property.

The difference is a matter of 30 inches, and the sheds is sealed and bolted around the edges and it would be difficult to move it. I have photographs to show. I hope this committee looks favorably on what I am trying to do.

Mr. McErlane reported that the shed is 40.25 inches from the rear property line. The site plan he submitted for his permit shows a 16 foot setback and we issued the permit. When the inspector Gordon King came out, he found the discrepancy. We need more information on the shed is anchored and sealed that makes it difficult to move. The concrete slab extends 30 inches in front of the shed.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.

Archie Flowers said I am renting this property. The shed there now was put where the old one was, or even back a little further. It is a much better shed.

Mr. Ralph Sinks of 737 Glensprings Drive said since this man ha bought the property it has been extensively improved. The upkeep is tremendously good, the neighbors are sociable, reliable and trustworthy. I thank them for improving our little neighborhood.

The shed was dilapidated and to replace it was a vast improvement. As you view that property, it is a nice location and the jutting forward of the slab performs as an apron, and it would be difficult to move it to the forward position of that slab. I am glad to have these people as my neighbors.

Mr. Okum closed the public hearing.

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

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said staff asked for more information on the difficulty of moving the shed.


BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
17 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE THREE

SHED 40.25 INCHES FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE – 746 GLENSPRINGS

Mr. Harris responded the old shed had raccoons in there so the new shed was sealed and sink bolts were put in to keep the animals out. It is sealed all the way a round and the shed is plastic and metal with a good solid roof.

Mr. McErlane wondered what it would take to move the shed further forward. Apparently you have it sealed and you would have to remove the anchors and drill new ones.

Mr. Okum asked if the shed was assembled in panel form and put up or if it came in little sections. Mr. Harris answered it came in sections. Mr. Okum said so you would have to disassemble the shed to move it. Mr. Harris said it is one unit now, and the purpose of the slab was to make it more solid and strong. The neighbor behind me is always complimenting me on the shed.

Mr. Okum said for the record, all parties surrounding this property owner’s home have been advised of this request. Staff confirmed this.

Mr. Squires said I believe only one shed is allowed on a property, and apparently there are two on this property.

Mr. Harris responded there is a little utility shed that is 98 cubic feet, but I was not aware of this rule. It can be picked up and taken away if necessary. Mr. Squires wondered if that would be a problem and Mr. Harris said no, but it does give me extra storage. It is vinyl and plastic like the other one.

Mr. Squires asked if he wasn’t told he would have to remove the second shed when he received the permit. Mr. Harris indicated he wasn’t. Mr. McErlane reported that we have tried to draw some distinction on the storage. These bins only have a 24 s.f. footprint, and to call them a sheds is a little bit of a stretch, so unless there are more than one, we do not consider that a problem.

Mrs. Harlow said we have had other applicants and we did consider that type of a little utility building as a structure on the property. A woman came in and wanted a shed and had a rubber made structure in her yard as well. We told her to tear it down. I did not think it was fair then and I don’t think it is fair now. I want to treat everyone equally; I want us to be consistent.

Mr. Okum commented in this case he has indicated that if it is a problem, he would remove it. In that case, she was asking for a larger shed than allowed, and in this case he is asking for an 80 s.f. shed when he could put up a 120 s.f. shed. However the code needs to be changed to determine if these are going to be factored in or not.

Mr. Okum said there is a situation here of a problem with taking the shed down and moving it forward without ruining the quality of the unit. It is a practical difficulty for him to accomplish this.



BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
17 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE FOUR

SHED 40.25 INCHES FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE – 746 GLENSPRINGS

Mr. Harris added in the future I will go to the Building Department before I do anything more. I thought with taking the existing one down I would not need a permit.

Mr. Okum said the issue of the additional storage box or building is valid, and he is wiling to remove it from the property. Mr. Harris commented it would be a hardship.

Mr. Okum said if the applicant is willing to remove it, I personally feel there is a practical difficulty to adjust the shed without destroying it. There has been due notice given the neighbors, and it is a reasonable adjustment.

Mr. Squires said you indicated there was a hardship; is there a slope back there? Mr. Harris answered yes, it drops off and when it rains there is a little pool down there.

Mr. Okum said the motion should be for an 80 s.f. shed which is under the permitted limit. I would like to see the motion specific to the 80 s.f. shed and that it be no closer than 40.25 inches to the rear property line.

Can the additional storage bin be removed? Mr. Harris responded I want to keep that. We have so much stuff in the garage and some of my stuff is at Uncle Bob’s. We tried to make it look as uniform and neat as possible.

Mr. Okum said we have observed the additional storage bin. Ignoring it in the motion doesn’t give you permission to have it, but ignoring it in the motion gives us the opportunity to address this and these types of buildings. That is something that would go through a committee, the staff, law director and ultimately council.

Mr. Okum said at this point I think we should ignore it. If the city decides to enforce that part of the code, by ignoring it we are not giving you the authority to keep it.

My suggestion would be to amend the motion to specify that the 80 s.f. shed be allowed to be 40.25” from the property line.

Mrs. Huber moved to amend the motion to allow an 80 s.f. utility building to be located at a distance of 40.25” from the property line. Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.

Mrs. Harlow said I don’t agree with the 80 s.f. part. I am not in favor of telling them they cannot have what everybody else in the city can have, a 120 s.f. shed. I have a problem with making the shed 40 s.f. less than this property is allowed to have. I am opposed to taking that right away from any future owner.

Mr. Emerson said that was my question. Is any future shed restricted to 80 s.f.?

Mr. Okum answered it would not prohibit anyone from putting a 120 s.f. shed on that property. The motion says that if you are going to have a shed 40.25” from the property line, it must remain at 80 s.f.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
17 OCTOBER 2006
PAGE FIVE

SHED 40.25 INCHES FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE – 746 GLENSPRINGS

Mr. Harlow responded so you are stating that to keep it at 40.25”from the property line, the shed can be no more than 80 s.f. Mr. Reichert said I was going to make the same comment.

On the amendment to the motion, all voted aye and it was approved unanimously.

On the amended motion, all voted aye, and the variance was granted unanimously.

X. DISCUSSION

XI. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and Mr. Reichert seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,



________________________,2006    _____________________
                        David Okum, Chairman



________________________,2006    _____________________
                        Jane Huber, Secretary