BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 OCTOBER 1995

7:30 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, Councilwoman Marge

Boice, William Mitchell, Ralph Nadaud, Thomas

Schecker, James Young and Wilton Blake.

III MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 22 AUGUST 1995

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1995

Mr. Ralph Nadaud commented I understand there were some corrections made,

and Mrs. Webb passed those out this evening. Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and both sets of Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

IV CORRESPONDENCE

A. Zoning Bulletin, Volume 43, No. 10 - October 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin, Volume 43, No. 10A - October 15, 1995

C. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. Blake has passed out a report on Planning

Commission. Mr. Blake commented I notice that we are getting

the Planning Commission Minutes also, and I would ask if it is

necessary for me to continue to summarize my report? Mrs. Webb

commented the Minutes you receive are for the previous month; what

you report on is the previous weekís meeting, and there might be

something of interest. Mr. Blake moved that his report be included

in the Minutes and all present voted aye.

"Report of Planning Commission to Board of Zoning Appeals

The following action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 1995.

1. Tri-County Mall requests approval of proposed modification to

Entrance A of Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike (tabled

12 September 1995) Tabled

2. Springdale Kemper Associates requests preliminary approval

of modified PUD plan at Tri-County Commons (east end of

existing building - Roberds ) Passed 6-1 abstained

3. Conditional Use Permit for proposed 360 s.f. cellular telephone

equipment building & 135í tubular steel monopole and antenna

platform, 12000 Princeton Pike Failed 4-3

4. Wal-Mart, 600 Kemper Commons Circle requests approval of

the placement of eight storage containers behind their building

from October 1 to December 31, 1995 Passed 6-1

5. Exel Logistics, Tri-County Commons requests final approval of

proposed 100,000 square foot storage and distribution facility

Failed 4-3

6. Extended Stay America Inc. requests final plan approval of

proposed hotel at I-275 & Glensprings Dr. (Strebel Property)

Tabled 7-0"

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Two

III. CORRESPONDENCE - continued

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12 September 1995

 

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Joe Scott, 719 Yorkhaven Road requests variance to allow him to park his boat in his driveway. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(2)(b) "...must leave two additional spaces on the existing driveway..Each such space shall be not less than 9 feet by 20 feet".

Mr. Scott stated I owe all of you an apology. My tape measure came up a little long on the last go round. I went back and did some measurements again, and found out that my son had held the tape measure clear back at the garage door instead of where it was supposed to be. I still come up a little under two foot short from the sidewalk to the garage, and two foot from the wall to the other edge of the driveway. I would like to say this; there is no way I can comply with the 9í x 20í space. The photos I showed you last month should show you that I am quite capable of parking three vehicles plus the boat on the driveway in an orderly fashion without having them overhang the sidewalk and prevent anyoneís movement up or down the hill. The fact is I have had a boat since 1974, and I have had it parked out front during the summer months for just about all the years I have been here. The only question I had about the ordinance was that it was adopted in 1982. I donít know about the grandfather clause; people talk to you about this, especially when you are coming in front of the Zoning Commission. I do not know how it would pertain to this. I really donít want to ruin my lawn during the summer months by putting the boat alongside the house, puling it back out and creating ruts and mud. I think it would distract from the property value; I donít think my neighbors would be happy with it. At this point of time, I canít afford to put a concrete pad out there to park it on. So I guess I am at your mercy; whatever you feel is right, but I would like to get a variance. When the house was built, everything was to code. I stopped by and had a talk with Planning Commission last week. Basically Iím appealing to you to see if you would grant me this variance until such time as either I move or find the moneys to do the concrete work rather than destroy my lawn.

Mr. Blake asked if he was saying he did have adequate space on the side of his house to be in compliance? Mr. Scott responded I am saying that is where you are telling me that I have to put the boat, on the side of the house. According to this ruling that you have to have two spaces, 9í x 20í on the driveway; the boat happens to be 6í-7" in width, parked next to a car with 9 feet from the wall out. There still is more than adequate room, as you saw in the pictures, for car doors to open and people to get in and out without having anything on the grass or anywhere else. But there is no way you can get another 9í x 20í anything in there. Mr. Blake said my question was do you have the space on the side of your house to park the boat? Mr. Scott answered yes I do, in the grass.

Mr. Mitchell commented as you are aware during the last monthís hearing, we had another gentleman with the same request. Being consistent with the ruling we had on his case, I will ask that you do the same, which is to withdraw your request and park your boat at the end of your garage and be in compliance. I will ask this from you.

Mr. Nadaud stated I rode by the property this evening, and I did notice that the one car parked behind the boat did protrude into the sidewalk

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Three

V. A. JOE SCOTT, 719 YORKHAVEN VARIANCE TO PARK BOAT IN DRIVEWAY

Mr. Scott responded I know it did tonight; I am in the process of moving the boat to put it around back and winterize it. It was only there for a few minutes to change clothes to come up here.

Mr. Young commented I would like to agree with Mr. Mitchell from the standpoint that as a Board, we have to show some consistency in the application of the code. At that meeting, there was another gentleman who had almost an identical problem requesting the identical variance, and we denied that. I would find it hard for us to allow it in one case and not in the other one when the cases were so similar. I think we should stand fast on the fact that it is Code, and you do have the room to put it on the side. I understand your concern about the grass, because those are nice houses and the yards are maintained well, but the Code is the Code, and we have to look at it the way it is set up.

Mr. Scott asked what else could I do besides what you are asking me to do now? What things do I have available to me? Mr. Young responded I think to come into compliance the boat would have to go to the side of the house or behind the house. Mr. Scott stated by taking my boat out each weekend, am I allowed 72 hours each weekend to bring it out in the front of the house and prepare it to go to the lake? Mr. Mitchell answered that is 72 hours per month. Mr. Scott continued so what kind of time frame do you allow to prepare the boat to go out to the lake? Mr. Young asked if he were speaking on a daily basis, and Mr. Scott responded I donít go out there every single weekend, but if I would bring the boat out and pack it the Thursday night before I go, because when I come home from work on Friday I want to leave, is that reasonable? Mr. Young responded I donít think that is for us to interpret; that is the Building Department. Mr. Scott added I donít want to get anybody upset and have somebody call down here and say Iím not in compliance with something. By the same token, to carry all the stuff out of the garage, put it in the boat, and you canít leave stuff laying around in the boat. Mr. Young asked if it made a difference if he put that stuff in your driveway or setting next to your house? Mr. Scott responded if I am going to the lake and I want to leave directly after work, can I bring it around Thursday night, load it so that as soon as I get home on Friday I can hook up to it and leave? Will that create a problem for the zoning board?

Mr. Nadaud responded I donít think it would be a problem for the Board. I donít think it would be a problem at all unless somebody would complain. I donít think Gordon would be out on Thursday night or Friday night to cite violations to the Code. None of us are in the position that we can say yes you can do that, because it would be an error telling you that.

Mr. Scott commented so it is a basic judgment call? Mr. Nadaud responded I would think you would have to use good judgment on something of that nature. Mr. Scott said I donít understand what the ramifications would be if somebody did complain that I had it out there on a Thursday night. Youíre telling me that you want me to comply with a variance, and I am willing to comply with a variance. But I donít want to come up against another problem by my taking the initiative to bring it around the front of the house to pack it for a camping trip.

Mrs. Boice asked if it would be difficult to load the boat on the side of the house and then pull it out? Are you saying it needs to be on the stable driveway?

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Four

V A JOE SCOTT 719 YORKHAVEN VARIANCE TO PARK BOAT IN DRIVEWAY

Mr. Scott answered the side of the house isnít lit, and the front of the house is lit and there is a chance that my dog would be awake and start barking. Around the side of the house I doubt that seriously. I recently had a bicycle stolen out of my garage that was hanging up clear in the back of the garage. What I am saying is that I donít want to leave life jackets and things like that of value, and take a chance being in the dark unprotected.

Mr. Boice continued you have explained that if you are very careful, you are able to get all of the vehicles and the boat in the driveway without overhanging the sidewalk, correct? Mr. Scott commented I showed you pictures. Mrs. Boice continued really the variance if we were to grant it would be splitting hairs almost. I would feel that on that Thursday night that you are loading the boat, if you were extremely careful to be sure you were not protruding onto the sidewalk, I donít foresee any particular problem, as long as the boat is pulled on the side the rest of the time.

Mr. Scott responded I understand. All I am saying is that I donít know if I would get cited by a police officer or what. That is my question. Mrs. Boice answered our police department doesnít do that type of citing, do they Gordon? Mr. King stated he does have 72 hours cumulative a month, so I do not think he would have a problem doing what he has described. Mrs. Boice added all of us here try to avoid as many variances as we possibly can, and I think you have a workable solution here. I donít foresee any problems, and if there are, you have the right to come back and approach this Board again.

Mr. Scott responded if that is the case, then I would like to withdraw this request.

VI NEW BUSINESS

A. Fred Ross, 740 Park Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of an additional utility building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.039(A) "There may be 1 accessory building..on the same zoning lot.."

Mr. Ross stated I am requesting a variance to put up another 10í x 12í cedar building. We currently have one on there. The existing building is anchored into the ground. Mr. Nadaud said looking from the street into your back yard this evening, there is a quite large storage shed back there at this. is time. Mr. Ross said it is 10í x 12í. Mr. Nadaud continued and that doesnít give you enough space? Mr. Ross answered no, I have a lot of woodworking equipment that I want to put in the second building.

Mr. Schecker asked the feelings of his neighbor to the east? Mr. Ross answered there were no objections from anybody completely around me.

Mr. King commented there may be one thing additional to consider on Mr. Rossí application. Possibly it may be within 20 feet of the adjacent house to the east, which is another part of the Zoning Code, I donít know. Mr. Ross stated it would be 25 feet. Mr. King reported we have a 20 foot requirement, so that is sufficient. Mr. Nadaud said your lot is actually 125 feet long and 91 feet wide? Mr. Ross answered yes. Mr. Nadaud continued and you are allowing six feet from the property line to the back side of your storage shed and you would still meet the requirement of 20 feet from your new shed to the nearest residence? Mr. Ross said yes, it would be on the same line with the existing shed.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Five

VI A FRED ROSS, 740 PARK AVENUE - ADDITIONAL UTILITY BUILDING-cont.

Mr. Blake stated when I came to your house, I came down the sidewalk on the side of the property, and came to the back. The way I am looking at your plans, isnít there a fence close here? Mr. Ross responded there is a fence around a little garden area. Mr. Blake asked if there werenít a fence that came across the back, and Mr. Ross stated there is an old fence between the neighbor and myself. Mr. Blake continued but there is no fence between your house and the house on Glensprings, and Mr. Ross said there wasnít. That fenced in yard is two houses down from me.

Mr. Nadaud reported I think what we need to take into consideration when we look at this sketch is the fact that it is quite a bit out of proportion to the size of the yard. The yard is not very large, is it? Mr. Ross responded I would say it is a good sized back yard.

Mr. Schecker commented part of the problem is the dip between your house and the house on Glensprings. It tends to give the impression that your yard is rather shallow, when in fact your property line goes back a ways beyond that.

Mr. Boice asked if the utility building would be the same type to match the building you have now? Mr. Ross answered yes, I would prefer to stay with the cedar building because it is better constructed.

Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be possible to do this building north of the existing building, going back toward the rear of the property instead of going toward the front? Mr. Ross answered no, because there is a dip that runs three and one-half feet, with all drainage tile under there. Mr. Mitchell continued what about to the west of the existing building; is there a problem doing that? Mr. Ross stated I would prefer having it where I wanted it, but I guess I could possibly change it. Mr. Mitchell stated I am a little concerned when I look at it from the street.. I would think putting it west of the existing building would look a lot better.

Mrs. Boice asked if the entrance on the present building is on the west side and Mr. Ross answered that it was. Mrs. Boice commented if you put that building there, it would block your entrance, wouldnít it? Mr. Mitchell commented just move the entrance.

Mr. Schecker commented I would think that aesthetically the proposed location would be much more agreeable with the layout of the whole property than to put it to the west.

Mr. Nadaud stated it probably works out real well in your yard, and your neighbors donít seem to mind. but a situation like this creates other problems down the road when other residents request a variance for two storage buildings. This could set a precedent that would be hard to deal with in the future. Iím not saying that I am totally against it. It seems like an awful lot of space there; the Code allows 120 square feet, and by adding another 10í x 12í building, you actually are doubling the amount allowed for a storage building.

Mr. Nadaud said you would be storing woodworking equipment in this new building? Mr. Ross answered yes, the electric would be buried underground, and I would have a lathe, saw, grouters, non-flammables. Mr. Nadaud asked if he had considered deterioration to his machinery due to the humidity and moisture in the shed? Mr. Ross responded not if it is insulated with an electric heater.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Six

VI A FRED ROSS 740 PARK AVENUE ADDITIONAL UTILITY BUILDING-cont.

Mrs. McNear commented so this would be a workshop, rather than a storage facility, and Mr. Ross said basically, yes. I do a lot of small cabinets and things like that.

Mrs. Boice asked if he has a one or two car garage and Mr. Ross answered it is a two car garage. Mr. Nadaud asked if there were a basement in his house, and there is not.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Schecker. Voting no were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Young and Mr. Blake. The variance was denied by a vote of 5 to 2.

C. Carol Norman, 504 Grandin Avenue requests a variance to allow the construction of a roof over the deck projecting into the front yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D) "..may project 6 feet into a required front yard."

Paul Rainey reported we recently completed a deck for which we received a variance. We requested a 16í wide deck and received a variance for 14í. Twelve is what we could have had, so we compromised with 14 feet. It is a nice deck and we are happy with it, except we would like to put a roof on it. Because we have the two foot variance, I understand we also have to have the variance for the roof. I have pictures of the deck, which he showed members of the Board.

Mr. Nadaud commented most of us have been by the property and looked at the deck, and it does look quite nice. You did a real nice job.

Mr. Rainey continued one of the problems we have encountered, which makes us want the roof somewhat more, is that the leaves are a problem. .After the leaves, we will have snow and ice, and it makes the thought of a roof very attractive. Since we have a contractor lined up to enclose a room in the back of the house, we would like to utilize him to put the roof on. We are thinking about a gable roof with trusses. It wouldnít be closed in the front; it would be open like a cathedral roof.

Mr. Mitchell commented when you were in here a couple of months ago for the variance, was that deck built according to the variance? Mr. Rainey said it was, and Mr. Mitchell continued were the steps out front, and Mr. Rainey answered the steps werenít presented. We made that request later, and were told that it would be treated as an extension and that there wasnít any problem with that. We checked back with them before we built it.

Mr. Nadaud asked if Mr. McErlane or Mr. King had an opportunity to review your building plans for the roof? Mr. Rainey reported we really havenít submitted building plans per se. We submitted a drawing that Carol did that shows what the roof would look like. You have a copy of that. It would cover the deck and has 6í x 6í posts and premanufactured trusses that would extend sideways across the deck.

Mr. Nadaud said I trust it would meet the building codes? Mr. King reported before a permit is issued, they would have to meet code.

 

 

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Seven

VI B CAROL NORMAN, 504 GRANDIN AVE. ROOF OVER DECK-continued

Mr. Nadaud commented I think a roof structure of this type is a little bit out of nature for this type of home. Iím not saying I donít like it; it probably would look very nice. Mr. Rainey responded up on the next street, they have a deck, and have the same kind of gable roof coming out, and it looks very nice. It looks much better than the shed type roofs. As far as structural, there should not be any problem with that. There is certainly enough underneath this deck to hold it up.

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít have any problem with it; I think what you have done so far has been a compliment to the property.

Mrs. Boice said when I drove by the property after the deck was up, I was glad we had cut down the measurements. Iím being very honest with you; somehow I had not envisioned this. I donít know if it was the steps that threw me or what. The structure came out much larger than I had anticipated it would be looking at the plans. I understand what you are saying about leaves; I have a deck with nothing over it which is what I prefer. I do have some concerns about putting a roof on that deck. With the deck as it is now protruding into the front yard, you still have that openness, which does not make that protrusion as apparent. Once you roof it in, that extension into the front yard is going to be magnified a great deal.

Mr. Rainey responded let me ask you this. Since the variance is only for two feet, would a variance be required for the first 12 feet? Do I just need a permit for a 12-foot roof over? Mrs. Boice responded that I couldnít answer. I would think because the deck itself is on a variance, a roof would be required because it is extending into the front yard. Mr. King commented he is saying if he doesnít extend it out beyond the normal building line. Mrs. Boice said so you are saying partially roofing the deck. Mr. Rainey responded if that is the only thing we can have, that is the direction I would go, but I would rather do it right, but if that canít be, I would look for something less. Mrs. Boice commented I guess that is a possibility.

Mrs. McNear stated a roof of that size would be a bit overwhelming, because there is not much depth to the front yard. That is why we have the variance situation anyway, because we want to have a certain setback. I think it would be overwhelming with 14 feet of cathedral ceiling in the front yard.

Mr. Rainey said where would I go to try to get the answer about two feet? Weíre only talking about two feet. Suppose I cut two feet off the deck and get a permit to build the roof, and then I wouldnít have to have a variance, would I?

Mr. King reported if there arenít any zoning violations, he could apply for a permit out to this building line. Possibly the roof might project somewhat out beyond that as an architectural projection. I donít recall what the setback was. Mr. Rainey stated the setback would have allowed us a 12 foot deck. I wanted four feet, and we compromised with two feet.

Mr. Blake asked Mr. King if he is understanding him to say that if he applied for a 12í x 12í or 10í x 12í deck and decided to put a roof over it, I could ask for a permit? I thought when you asked for a deck, you had to come back in and get permission to cover it.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Eight

VI B CAROL NORMAN 504 GRANDIN AVENUE - ROOF OVER DECK - continued

Mr. King responded the part of the deck he asked a variance from was the front yard setback. Had he only wanted a 12 foot deck, he would not have had to address this body and could have gotten this permit because there would not have been a conflict with the Zoning Code.

Mrs. Boice stated I was looking at the original request, and I am a bit confused and would like it clarified. According to this, he may project six feet into the required front yard. Mr. King responded you are allowed to project on out with an entrance feature. Mrs. Boice said so with 14 feet, he is eight feet over the six feet, right? Mr. Rainey said I only needed the two feet; the only thing I was here for was two feet.

Mr. Mitchell commented I think you were here for 1j0 additional feet. You asked for 16 x 22 and we cut it back to 14 x 22. You needed a variance for that, because you were extending yourself an additional 10 feet. Mr. Rainey said I really donít think that is accurate, but I do not have any of that in front of me.

Mrs. Boice commented the original request says may project six feet into the required front yard, 10 and one--half feet showing, so I think for the projection in the front yard, weíre not talking two feet, we are talking seven and on half to eight feet into the front yard.

Mr. Nadaud said if I may quote Section 153.037(B) in the Code, "entrance feature an open platform, landings, steps terrace or other feature not extending above the first floor level of a building may extend six feet into a front yard and three feet into a side yard." That is the Code we are dealing with.

Mrs. Boice commented and we are more than six feet with that deck. Mr. Nadaud added and originally you were asking for a 16 foot projection and we thought that excessive and granted 14 feet.

Mr. Rainey stated we were given to understand at the outset that we could have built a 12 foot deck without seeking any consent from the Board. Isnít that true? Mr. Nadaud responded I canít answer that; I donít know what your setback is. Your house may set back further. All I can rely on is the Code as it is written. Mr. Rainey said I didnít anticipate this discussion, so I really donít have those figures. Mr. Nadaud added there is a another item, (D), non-enclosed shelters, an entrance, hood or open but roofed porch may project six feet into the required front yard or three feet into the required side yard and not more than 50% into the required rear yard. I think what we are dealing with is a six foot specification.

Mrs. McNear said obviously there is some confusion as to how many feet you have and what is allowed and what we are working with, and I donít think we can go any further until we have definitive figures here. I donít know if Mr. King can find something out this evening, or if we n need to table this. There is no sense trying to make a decision when we donít know what we are talking about, which is obviously the case here. Mrs. Boice said I would agree; it wouldnít be fair to us and it certainly wouldnít be fair to you. Would you be agreeable to our tabling this until we get all our ducks in a row? Mr. Rainey answered fine. It would give me a chance to look at it too; Iím not clear either. Mrs. Boice moved to table and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the matter was tabled until the November meeting.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Nine

VI NEW BUSINESS - continued

C. Cincinnati Bell requests variance to allow the construction of a walk-in cabinet 30 feet from the public right off way. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(D)(4)(a) "Front yards must be at least 35 feet deep" and (b) "each side yard must be at least 10 feet wide."

Mr. Greg Hoff, Outside Plan Engineer and Integrated Planner of Cincinnati Bell and Tom Fernandez of SFA Architects approached the Board.

Mr. Fernandez stated I feel there is a need to explain what we are talking about. We are looking at a cabinet which is partially underground (showed drawings to the Board), a concrete precast system. it projects approximately 5í8" above grade, and is approximately six feet in width and nine feet in length.

Mr. Fernandez continued we have a number of similar installations throughout the Greater Cincinnati area. This is the first time we have been requested to submit for a building permit. Typically these are not considered buildings; they are unoccupiable structures. The intent is to house and provide space for fiber optic equipment, as well as ELC digital carrier, which Iíll ask Greg to explain. As technology has changed, no longer can we put equipment underground in manholes because it is much more sensitive to temperatures and humidity. So, not only this public utility, but others have gone to these cabinets.

Mr. Hoff added we are going to place fiber optic cable from our central office on Mill Road to this site. Fiber optic cable is about one quarter inch in diameter. That will replace three cables that are currently on the pole line today. This will replace them eventually. Today we are anticipating they will take down one of the cables, the largest one which is in front of Temple Baptist Church all the way back to Kemper Road. Inside this cabinet where that fiber cable will go is what we call SLC, Subscriber Lube Carrier. You can take four key one lines and produce 96 voice grade circuits, so we call it SLC 96. This is deferring the placement of large copper cables which are expensive. We are bringing fiber optic cable into the area which will handle any service the customers in this area would like.

Mr. Fernandez stated to give you a little history on this site, in July of this year, we applied for storm work in the right of way as we typically do. From that application we received approval contingent upon obtaining a permit. Immediately upon receiving notice of this, on July 27th, we applied for a building permit.

Mr. Fernandez continued as a result, we have two issues, the front yard and side yard issue that Bill questioned and asked us to raise in todayís meeting. Who does this equipment serve? It serves the residents of the City of Springdale. What I understand is that the secondary service requests for additional lines into a home have increased tremendously within the city.

Mr. Fernandez stated we originally had hoped to complete this in September. Right now we are starting to feel the effects, and are starting to spend roughly $3,000 a week with additional service calls, because we do not have the capacity to provide additional service. It has been since October 1 that we have had these service issues come up.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Ten

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET - continued

Mr. Fernandez continued we picked this location because it had to do a lot with the location of the existing service lines. He showed the site plan, adding this is at the north entrance driveway to the Temple Baptist Church. They have two entrance pylons, large trees at this point and the neighboring property has large bushes. This is pretty much an open view to the church facility.

Mr. Fernandez stated in looking at the placement of this building, we had to consider where it was in relationship to the city and the service line. Tog give you another figure, it costs us $800 each additional foot that we have to go further than the ideal point. This is the ideal point, and awe will be tying into the service lines that now exist there, and eliminate a number of service lines to the south of the property.

Mr. Fernandez reported we typically do not purchase lane for these buildings. As many public utilities companies, we get easements for the use of the property. Just as CG&E runs a service line down the side of a property, we use this as a standard in acquiring permission and easement agreements which you have been supplied a copy of. Most of the equipment is in the right of way space right now. The right of way line is in front of the easement space, so our proposed cabinet will be 12 feet behind the right of way line, and approximately four and one-half feet from the property line.

Mrs. Boice asked how far the building is from the driveway in question 11965, and Mr. Hoff answered it is 15 to 20 feet. That is a small area between the edge of the drive and the property line. We were afraid to move back and have it stick out like a sore thumb, and Temple Baptist Church didnít want that either, and gave us an easement here at the corner.

Mr. Mitchell commented I notice you said there is a tree along the sidewalk. Mr. Fernandez responded there is an existing tree here and bushes along the fence pretty far back. Mr. Mitchell asked the color of the building; would it be the limestone that is shown there, or could it be green?

Mr. Fernandez responded Greg has a photograph of some existing cabinets, and they are all that shape. Mdr. Hoff added it can be painted.

We have painted one before. It is a concrete construction one piece except the lid that is placed on afterwards and bolted in.

Mrs. Boice asked if the resident adjacent to this is present this evening? Mr. Young added I wanted to ask if you had talked to the neighbor on the next property.

Mr. Fernandez answered that they had not, but they will be doing that. It is our intent to be good neighbors and thatís why we are here. In showing them how the building will be placed, I think they will be happy with it. Also we are open to any landscaping recommendation that the city might have as well as the next door neighbor to a certain extent. Weíre not gong to spend $50,000 landscaping, but we will be very open to make sure we have landscaping around this.

Mr. Young continued my concern would be why havenít you done that before you came to the Board. To me that seems like a logical step. You have an easement from the church because itís on their property, but it is up against a residence, and it would seem to me easy to go to the neighbor land talk to them about it.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Eleven

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET - continued

Mr. Fernandez responded I would agree; in this situation perhaps that would have been the best approach, but typically that is not the approach that Cincinnati Bell takes. We deal with so many sites and so many neighbors that if we had to check every time we did something along the roadway, it would make our business pretty difficult to complete. Not that we are opposed to it, and I think in this situation, we would be more than open to suggestions. I do believe personally that some landscaping has to go along with this, and we are committed to that. Cincinnati Bell puts up these buildings in neighborhoods with high concerns about the aesthetics of the structure and the landscaping issues, and in all cases, we have been able to be good neighbors by guaranteeing that we can provide adequate landscaping. To be honest with you, it is almost impossible to contact every neighbor, and there is always the possibility that somebody driving by might say I donít like that. How do we contact all those individuals:

Mr. Fernandez continued but we will as part of the process pledge to you to get in contact with the neighbor and make sure that their landscaping requests to a certain degree are met, as well as the Cityís. Our intent is to be good neighbors; we want to provide the City and all its residents continued service, and we are faced with economic decisions.

Mr. Fernandez stated we will soon have competition so every decision we make is somewhat dollar oriented when it comes to placing these buildings. Technically it would be impossible to place these buildings completely out of the way, or completely below grade or up on poles. The technology doesnít exist. Perhaps in the future the technology will change so the equipment will be getting smaller, It wonít be as sensitive to humidity and temperatures and perhaps youíll start seeing those on poles. I canít guarantee that, but I can tell you that three years ago, even two years ago we were putting up remote equipment buildings which were habitable buildings 20 x 30, and these have replaced those buildings. Weíre making every attempt to bring technology to the city, and make it a minimal impact.

Mrs. McNear asked if this building will replace all the boxes on the corner of Kenn and Cedarhill? Mr. Hoff answered it will not. This will feed the boxes and replace the cables. Mrs. McNear commented we are giving this resident a double whammy. They are completely surrounded by all this equipment, and I think it would have been a nice gesture to contact this person beforehand, because after you have the variance, there is no reason for you to do that. I would suggest that in the future if you have another building of this nature that needs to go in Springdale, you do that as a gesture of good will.

Mrs. McNear continued the only way I could feel I could vote in a positive manner for this would be if the building were completely screened in. Quite frankly, it looks like a mausoleum, and I certainly wouldnít want it in my yard. I do have an electric box in my front yard which is not attractive, but is a necessary evil. I purchased my home knowing that it was there. This house has been there for probably 30 years, and I think we need to take real good care of our residents by not putting such structures in their line of view.

Mr. Fernandez responded Cincinnati Bell needs this to be able to serve the community but we are open to your suggestions in terms of screening. If we get your approval conditional on a landscaping plan, I donít have a problem with that. We will use your suggestions as well as the neighborís suggestions.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Twelve

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET-continued

Mr. Fernandez stated we need to be able to get started with the construction, but we do not mind coming back to you, presenting the landscaping plan and we can contact the neighbor so they can be present if they have a problem. Whatever you would like; to me I would like to see evergreens.

Mrs. McNear responded I would not want to see it at all, quite frankly. Mr. Hoff we have two policies when it comes to landscaping. One is we give the property owner some money to do the landscaping they want; in some cases, they donít do anything. Or we can do the landscaping, and we always go to the property owner to find out what they want. We can approach Temple Baptist and this neighbor to find out what they want to have for landscaping.

Mrs. McNear commented we probably would want to have the city involved in that too, because the church and the neighbor on the corner of Kenn Road are not the only residents who will have to see that. It is not an aesthetically great addition to the neighborhood, so I personally would want to see that the cityís approval so you just canít see the building. Obviously you will need to be able to get to the door and will have to have some air around that, but I think we need to be real cautious to have it covered.

Mr. Hoff responded that is one of the reasons we would keep that tree there in front because it does a good job of hiding that.

Mr. Schecker said as a matter of orientation on this site plan, where is the north entrance column with respect to your cabinet? Mr. Fernandez responded it is approximately at these three locations (showed on the plan).

Mr. Blake commented it seemed to me we may be going in two directions. When it comes to the material and structure, that should be going to Planning and what they would come here for would be variances to the setbacks. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong, but I am concerned with the fact that we require anybody coming in for variances bring in signatures of the contiguous property owners. I personally donít feel that Cincinnati Bell should be exempt. When I came in for a variance as a member of the Board, I had to follow the criteria and guidelines and get those signatures. There is a whole outline of what needs to be done, and I think Cincinnati Bell needs to go back and bring it back properly and we will address it. All these people out here had to get signatures, and I donít think Cincinnati Bell should be exempted.

Mr. Mitchell said I drive by that location every day, and I am concerned with the limestone colored building. I know you are talking about landscaping, but maybe you should paint it green so it will blend in with the surrounding trees. I think it probably would be a lot more pleasing to the eye.

Mr. Fernandez responded I question whether we really want to have the maintenance, because painting concrete will mean a long-term maintenance issue. Again, Cincinnati Bell has its back against the wall. We are not opposed to meeting those aesthetic issues, following your requirement and contacting the neighbor. It was our belief we were following Billís advice and followed what we believed was proper procedure. Obviously if we need to get signatures from the neighbors we donít mind that.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Thirteen

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET-continued

Mr. Fernandez continued we are not opposed to Mr. Mitchellís issues, but I think you need to look at it, and if it is up, and once itís landscaped, you determine if you really want to paint it. You paint it green it does well for the summer months, but then you have this green box during the winter months. I think with effective landscaping, it has worked in the past, and you might find that we might not need to take that extra step. But, if you feel it necessary, we are not opposed to it.

Mr. Hoff commented I believe that color there has blended into the concrete. We have places where graffiti is on it, and we have a paint the same color, and it has held up pretty well. If it is green in the winter it may stick out worse.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the city was involved at all prior to your determining your location? Were they asked for their approval or suggestions?

Mr. Fernandez responded I canít speak to that because the person who is in charge of acquiring the property is not here. Typically, they do make contact. Again the location is determined by the technical needs of the entire system. Many times we donít have a choice; it is restricted by the fact of where we have open land available to us and then it gets to be very costly. Unless Greg knows of any contact with the city; Mr. Hoff added I donít believe we did, because that never entered our mind. We had never had this come up before in any city where we had to get a building permit. Mr. Nadaud commented thatís because you had a monopoly all this time; you could do whatever you wanted.

Mr. Fernandez continued the State of Ohio says public utilities are exempt from zoning, and most of the cities recognize that. We are here as good neighbors and want to comply with your requests.

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít know about state law, but I do feel in favor of Mr. Blakeís statement, that a structure of any kind when it is going to be built from scratch should go before the Planning Commission, and should be worked out at that point of time.

Mr. Hoff stated this is where we were directed to come. Mr. Fernanadez said we apologize for not contacting the neighbor earlier and having something in writing from them or having them present, but we were in good faith following the steps outlined to us.

Mr. Young said I would ask the Board whether we feel this is something we can go forward with at this point, based on some of the issues we have brought up, or whether or not we would be better off tabling this and have them come back after they have talked to the resident, or whether we determine this should go through Planning Commission. Iím not sure everybody is set to make a positive statement and allow it to happen. Quite honestly, I think what you are doing is the right thing to do. I donít personally have a problem with it, other than the fact that if I were that resident on that corner, Iíd want to know. I live about six doors up from that resident, and if you folks decided to do something on my property without my knowing it, Iíd be highly upset. From that standpoint, itís not something I could vote on positively tonight.

Mr. Hoff stated we are looking at a time problem here. We want to provide quality service to the customers, and we are at the point where we cannot provide service to the customers. The $3,000 a week that we are spending on maintenance is to repair the cable.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Fourteen

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET-continued

Mr. Hoff continued we can only do that for so long, and we are at the point where we cannot clear any more trouble, so we are going to have to put this in as soon as possible or weíre going to have to start denying service to customers in that subdivision. Cincinnati Bell doesnít want to do that.

Mr. Blake asked how long they had been working on this project, and Mr. Hoff answered approximately two years from the time we see the growth will take off to the time we start looking for property, it is a long drawn out process. Getting an easement sometimes takes six months or a year. This is not a spur of the moment deal.

Mr. Blake continued since you have made that timeline, will 30 days break Cincinnati Bell so we can make sure that we are comfortable, and that the resident is comfortable? You are asking us to cast a vote, and we are guardians of the city. Youíve taken two years to get this far. Iím rather uncomfortable about this, because you are asking to build a structure that has not come before Planning Commission. This Board grants variances for setbacks, but you also are asking for construction, and we want to make sure that we get it right, and I hope you can appreciate that. We do represent the City; we are on these Boards to be vigilant and to guard the store. Everyone here takes their job seriously. I personally get uptight when people come in and try to tell us about how much in a hurry they are. Weíve had people say if we canít get it done, theyíll go somewhere else, and we tell them to go somewhere else. Thatís how seriously we take it. So I am hoping you will work with us so that we can feel good about out vote. We want our citizens to have good service, but we also want to do it right. I hope you can appreciate that.

Mr. Fernandez responded I can, and respect that position. I do want to point out that what happened here is we applied in July for a permit and got a response. We within one day turned in the application for a building permit. Typically we donít have to go through that process, so this is a one of a kind situation for Cincinnati Bell. It is typically not done, so we really didnít think about it. We are here to work with you. What I donít want to do is see a delay where we would have to go to the Planning Commission; if we could avoid having to come back, by perhaps having your conditional approval.

Mrs. McNear stated I understand what you are saying about the delay and the cost. All I have to say is competition makes America great and youíll find out what thatís all about in the coming years. I want to caution you that we would rather take another 30 days and delay your project, rather than give you a denial this evening, and then you would have to wait an additional six months to reapply. So we also are trying to look out for the best interests of your company as well as our residents. I think it really would be in your best interests if we could table it for this evening and make sure we have all the pieces put together rather than going ahead and coming out with a decision that I donít think would be favorable for your company.

Mrs. Boice added I have a matter of concern. Mr. Blake, Iím not sure because this is a set type building that this needs to go through Planning Commission. Your being the representative from Planning, if you feel strongly about that, I certainly would bow to the majority. What is concerning me is that I am hearing you were not aware that you needed to contact the people around.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Fifteen

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET-continued

Mrs. Boice continued you were not given a form, so that is not their fault. I think that has to be taken into consideration. Mr. Hoff stated Bill had the plans for two months to see if as a utility we were exempt and at one point he was waiting for a letter from your lawyer to give me a building permit. At the last minute, Cecil said to come before the Board; thatís how this worked out. Mrs. Boice responded my assumption would be that the Building Department did not feel the need for it to go before Planning, and I donít know with a utility type thing it is not required, but I know if this were to go adjacent to me and all of a sudden I saw it going up, and no one had come to me to let me know what they were doing, I think I would have gone up the wall with you people, the City of Springdale and whoever else would hear me. Gordon Iím going to ask you. On a utility type building like this, isnít the form given for them to contact the adjacent neighbors? Mr. King stated there was consideration of the legality of public utilities and some attorneys were going to discuss some things. I have not seen the results of these. It may have been a moot question.

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít think the request is very complicated. We are dealing with a setback requirement here. What has entered into the picture is the fact that there is a neighbor involved who wasnít notified of this proposed structure. He has not had an opportunity to voice his opinion, or at least sign a piece of paper that said he wasnít concerned. I think that is the issue we are dealing with.

Mrs. Boice stated I would agree. This is a standard building and I think probably if it were going to be reviewed before Planning, it would be a chairmanship type review. I donít think it would be a full vote, and I stand corrected Mr. Blake if Iím wrong on that. I think that is the hang up because as he stated very well, we are the keepers of the gate, and we must answer for this. I donít have any particular problem with the setback itself, but I would have liked to have known that these individuals were aware of it and arenít going to wake up one morning and wonder what happened.

Mr. Mitchell commented they were saying they were not issued a form to notify the neighbors. Is that what happened? Mr. King responded I donít know; there was a lot of discussion going back and forth over along period of time on it being a utility and the easement and the zoning involved, and whether it was mentioned and never delivered, I donít know.

Mr. Young stated possibly we could structure the variance with the approval of the resident being tied to it, and that might alleviate the concern that we have on this Board in terms of whether or not they have a say in what goes on. I donít know if that is something we could do, but if it is that would help these folks from coming back again. It doesnít appear that we have an issue with the location; maybe some differences on how it should be landscaped, which could be worked out. There also is another property behind that might be affected. If we can structure it that way, I donít have a problem with it.

Mrs. Boice reported it seems to me that everyone is comfortable with the variance, correct? We have in the past handled it with a phone vote. If Cincinnati Bell could manage to contact those neighbors in the next couple of days, we could do the wording of the variance now and the chairman would contact us and we would cast our votes over the phone.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Sixteen

VI C CINCINNATI BELL CONSTRUCTION OF WALK-IN CABINET-continued

Mrs. Boice reported we have done that in the past, on very rare occasions. Or if you want to opt for another special meeting, but I would be agreeable to a phone vote.

Mr. Mitchell suggested that we should say that if they can show proof that the neighbor agrees to it, they contact the chairman and the chairman has the authority to go ahead and approve it, without going through the hassle of the phone vote. Mrs. Boice responded thatís fine, but I would like a motion on the floor that we are giving the chairman that permission; I think that needs to be in our Minutes.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance based on Cincinnati Bell contacting the resident next to the property and getting an affirmation from them and contacting the chairman to let him now the outcome. If that resident say no, there may be a problem, and it could be tabled to the next meeting.

Mr. Fernandez stated the only thing I would suggest is that Bill or someone from the city attend the meeting with the neighbor. We have done this in the past, and we have no problem with having a representative from the city at that meeting. Mr. Young commented that is a good idea. Mrs. McNear suggested adding something into this which requires screening around it, because if you donít put it in, itís not going to happen. Mr. Young added to his motion to include that the building have landscaping for screening.

Mr. Nadaud stated we have a motion on the floor to allow this variance contingent on the adjacent property ownerís being contacted and his approval with confirming approval through the Board Chairman, which would include attractive landscaping.

Mr. Schecker added should we go further and say that if these approvals are not forthcoming, the item will be tabled rather than denied. Mr. Nadaud agreed to add that in the motion.

Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Blake. Mrs. McNear abstained due to a conflict with being competitors in the near future. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes and one abstention.

D. Gordon & Sandy King, 474 Dimmick Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a new single family residence 20 feet from the rear property line and 12 feet from the front property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(4)(a) "Front yards must be at least 35 feet deep" and (c) "Rear yards must be at least 40 feet deep"

Mr. Nadaud commented I could not find 491 Dimmick Avenue. Mr. King stated it is on the corner of Rose Lane and Dimmick, the only empty lot there.

Mr. King continued we want to build a house there. Since it is a corner lot, we are in a situation where we have three side yards. We want to build a nice house there. We live at 589 Observatory now, and I also built a house for my parents at 448 Cloverdale Avenue, the redwood house. I want to build a nice house; Iíve lived in Springdale since 1965 and I donít want something like Mr. Cooper did on the lot next to it, which is a little rectangular box.

Board of Building Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Seventeen

VI D GORDON & SANDY KING - 474 DIMMICK AVENUE - NEW RESIDENCE

Mr. King continued I want to build something with cedar siding, a front porch and a back deck; something that is nice. On Lafayette, we have the most expensive house in that neighborhood, and I have the most expensive house on Cloverdale. We have to keep within a budget, but we want something that is nice and reflects our values and our appreciation of Springdale.

Mrs. Boice said we are looking at front and back setbacks. The rear property line of 20 feet is a concern to me.

Mrs. King stated the house next door is six feet away from the line. Mr. King added we have the house at 20 feet; there is the empty lot there and the Wolfs are right here who own that, and as far as I know, they have no objections. If they do, I would be willing to hear whatever they have to say.

Mrs. Wolf said they are talking about the 20 feet from the street, and I think it needs to be cleared up which street we are talking about. They are talking about Rose Lane, but the house has a Dimmick Avenue address.

Mr. King responded the 20 feet where the deck is would be facing your property. The 35 feet is Dimmick, which matches their house and all those houses. The six feet to the deck is actually a covered porch.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. King to draw where the other houses are around the property so we can have a better understanding of your request.

Mr. King said on the 12 foot setback to the house, if you go down Rose Lane, Scottiís and every other house is real close to the street, so we are staying well within the character of that street. The house next to it sets five feet from the property line, which is the dumbest thing Iíve ever seen. I would rather have a back yard, especially on a semi-busy street instead of having this big front yard that you wonít be able to enjoy.

Mr. King continued a couple from our church are interested in buying this house. They have young children and taking that into consideration, would have more of a back yard than a front yard. Here is a photograph of all the other houses as you come down Dimmick to show how close a lot of them are. We really are further back than almost all of these houses. When you have a 12 and 1/2 foot setback, the house is really 25 feet back. Mr. Mitchell asked if he had a picture of the lot, and Mr. King did not, but indicated that it is a 60 foot lot.

Mr. Nadaud said when you say 12 foot setback, are you talking from the street. Mr. King answered from the right of way. Mr. King added here are pictures of the lot. It is at the northeast corner of Rose and Dimmick. he passed the pictures around. Mr. King added our house would be 20 feet from here; I think the back yard is a lot more valuable than the front yard.

Mrs. Wolf commented my biggest concern is the height of the house. As you see on those pictures, there was a lot of dirt dumped on that lot. When they built his fatherís house, they dumped a lot of dirt on this property, and it is causing problems with drainage. I am not too sure about the variance. I have mixed emotions. It doesnít bother me where it is as close to my property, but I think she is concerned about it going out that much further to the street and not keeping it in line with her house.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Eighteen

VI D GORDON & SANDY KING, 474 DIMMICK AVENUE-NEW RESIDENCE-cont.

Mr. Nadaud stated your main concerns are that the water runoff that has been taking place for some time, and that would probably be corrected if this residence was built.

Mr. King responded we dumped probably 10 dumploads of dirt there and all that will be coming out when we dig the foundation. As far as her problem with water, that had to do because Mr. Cooper built that house on a culvert. The culvert runs all the way down from Beacon Hills, and that water always has drained into her lot. Iím sorry that happened, but that isnít my fault because our lot always has been higher than her lot. Mr. Von Bargen dumped dirt in there a long time ago. Mr. Cooper had put a 15" culvert right through her front yard. I sympathize, but I can tell you by Code that you canít dump water on other peopleís property. We will have a sump pump in there. I understand their concerns, but that all will be taken care of by building the house to code.

Debbie Sandman said I am the daughter of Adele Stouder. This is an older neighborhood, and even though the house may be a rectangular box, it fits very well within the neighborhood. I am concerned about this house setting higher. It has added additional water problems to the property, and my house will be somewhat hidden. It will be behind everything; I do not like the idea of having this house built with this type of variance.

Mr. King reported I showed you pictures from Scottiís, and every house down Rose Lane which are closer to the road than where our house will be. The guy who built her house built it way too low. Mr. Cooper is not a quality builder; the house should set above the curb. When we build the house, that will help her problem, because all the water on the roof will be directed to the gutter or directed to the street.

Mr. King added I do not think it will completely solve the problem, because the house is built in a rut, and there is nothing I can do about that. I want to build a nice house. I can build a house that looks like that, but it does not do anything for the neighborhood or my reputation. I want to do a high quality project; I have owned this lot since 1986, and I think it would be a nice house; I will leave it in your hands.

Ms. Sandman commented Springdale did allow that house to be built. They must have allowed it for a particular reason. Why that should become an issue with him, I am not quite sure.

Mr. King stated it becomes an issue with me when someone else tries to tell me what to do with my property. I do not want to build a house that sets back six feet from their property line with 40+ feet of front yard on a busy street, when every other house on Rose Lane sets much closer to the street than this. I was there when he built that house, and there is a 15 inch culvert running through her motherís front yard; that is why their house sets back so far.

Mrs. Boice said did I understand you to say that the 14 foot deck in the back will be roofed? Mr. King answered no, that is a simple deck to take advantage of the Wolfís beautiful landscaping. The deck in the front will have an overhang; it is a covered porch.

Mrs. McNear asked how many feet the house would be in front of the Souder house? Ms. Wolf answered it is 20 feet from the property line to the edge of her house. Mr. Nadaud commented this diagram showed it as a 25 foot setback.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Nineteen

VI D GORDON & SANDY KING 474 DIMMICK AVENUE - NEW RESIDENCE - cont

Mrs. King stated it would be 13 feet. Mr. King added we have another 12 and one-half feet of right of way, so the house will be back 25 feet. At the front of the porch it would be 18 and 1/2 feet from the back of the curb.

Mr. Nadaud commented your motherís house is 25 feet back from the right of way, and your house would be 12 feet back from the right of way, so that is 13 feet between Stouders and theirs. Mrs. King stated I believe their house would have been built in the same setback as ours if they had not had the culvert. Mdr. King added jour house would set further back than 90% ofd the houses on Rose Lane on that side of Kemper.

Mrs. Boice asked the width of the deck, and Mr. King answered 14í x 16í. Mrs. Boice commented I was thinking about moving that house back a bit and making the deck smaller. Mr. King answered as a professional deck builder, anything less than 14 feet is a wasted space. I am totally opposed to doing anything like that, because every foot I am moving the house back is taking away from the value of my house.

Mrs. Boice stated I cannot agree with the statement you just made. I am trying to see if there is some way there can be a give and take on this. Mr. King responded my concern is not the deck, but the amount of back yard; we want the back yard.

Mr. Schecker commented you are talking about an oddball situation and lot that needs modification, and that is what Marge was talking about.

Mr. King continued I would completely take the deck off the back. The concern is having a back yard. We have a couple who are interested in this lot, and they have two young children. To me, every foot we have to shove the house back takes away from the value of it.

Mrs. McNear asked if they would be willing to compromise on the back yard and move the house back half the distance they are looking at now.

Ms. Sandman responded I would have to see that first to be able to make the compromise. I am still concerned about the height of the house, because I think that adds to the problem I have. I do not know any of the details. Mr. Nadaud stated we do not know the height. Mr. King said the height would be 14 feet; it is a one story. Ms. Sandman stated I am still concerned about the appearance of the elevation.

Mr. King commented I can build a house without getting a variance, but I want to build a nice house. I do not want to build a crackerbox, but I will. It is your call; I am not going to squabble about moving the house this way or that way. We think it is well within the character of the neighborhood..

Mr. Blake said let me say that this Board will bend its back to try and help. We have the responsibility to listen and try to be as fair as we can. You are coming in and saying what you feel and asking the Board for a variance, but I do not feel you have been very sensitive to listening to the Board so that the Board can try to work with you. To come with the attitude of building a crackerbox is not a good attitude. Donít get angry; we listen to you, please listen to us. We have to listen to you and her and her, and try to come up with a legitimate solution where everybody is happy. Please do not try to be abrasive.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Twenty

VI D GORDON & SANDY KING 474 DIMMICK AVENUE - NEW RESIDENCE-cont

Mr. King responded that is my personality, and I apologize. When you pay money for property, you do not like to have people telling you what to do.

Mr. Blake continued to build it the way you want to, you will have to come and get a variance, and you must listen to what the Board has to say.

Mr. Blake moved to table this until the lady can see the plans and we have more information and tempers cool. Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Young.

Mrs. Boice asked the Board to do an on site inspection, take these papers and tape measures. We need to really eyeball that property to be fair to everyone concerned. I do not know if you want to do that the day of the meeting or on a Saturday. I will leave that to your discretion, but I would request that this Board meet at the site and do an on site inspection.

Mr. King asked if he needed a variance for where the house is setting to the street now? It is setting 12 feet off the line, and the porch is extended six feet off that. Do I need a variance to do that?

Mr. Nadaud answered based on the Code, the front yards must be 35 feet deep. Mr. Mitchell commented that is why I think we need more time to review this, because you will have to say the front yard is facing Rose Lane, and you are interpreting the front yard as facing Dimmick. Mr. Nadaud said you referred to the 20 foot section in the back as your back yard. If the 35 feet is the front yard, the 15 feet in the back has to be the back yard, so that would not meet code.

Mr. Nadaud commented I do think this is a rather small width for a lot. It will take some special plan to put a house that would suit your needs. One of your concerns was that you could not live with anything less than 20 feet in your back yard, but if I understood you correctly, you will not be living there anyway; somebody else will be.

Mr. King stated we have talked about moving in or renting it out. We have 647 Smiley and 448 Cloverdale also. Mr. Nadaud stated I would feel much better about this if the Board and you and your wife work together and compromise.

Mrs. King commented we would like to have some decision this evening, because it is getting late in the year. Mr. Nadaud responded I can understand that, but I do think we as a Board need some time to think about this. If it would go for a vote now, you may not get the variance you requested. We need time to study this and look at the property and see how much interference there may be to the other residences involved. I could not find the property, so I have not had an opportunity to look at it, and there may be one or two others with the same status.

E. Ronald & Becky Jasper, 306 West Sharon Road requests variance to allow the construction of a second garage and the driveway less than 19 feet wide. Said variances are requested from Section 153.039(A) "There may be..1 detached garage on the same zoning lot" and Section 153.023(G) "Driveways shall be a minimum 19 feet wide."

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 October 1995

Page Twenty-One

VI E RONALD & BECKY JASPER, 306 WEST SHARON - GARAGE & DRIVEWAY

Mr. Jasper stated we will tear down the existing garage and build the second garage, so we will have just one garage. Mr. Young commented your driveway would come straight back. Mr. Jasper added the driveway would be over 20 feet wide at the house, and the new garage would be 28í x 32í.

Mr. Blake commented I visited the Jaspersí property and in talking to Mr. Jasper, he agreed to take down the existing garage and carport. He has ample space to put the kind of building he wants, and he wants a garage that is 896 square feet. Mr. Jasper added I have a one-ton truck and two cars licensed as recreational vehicles, and need to store both of them during the winter. The garage would be 16 feet high, which is within Code.

Mr. Blake added Mr. Jasper has compromised with the Board because he was talking about the second garage initially, but he stated he would tear that down and ask for the one building.

Mr. King (Building Inspector) reported we would have to include the garage size in the variance.

Mr. Blake moved to grant a variance to allow a 12 foot wide driveway and the construction of an 896 square foot garage (600 feet is allowed under the Code). Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

F. Jean Taylor, 761 Yorkhaven Road requests variance to allow the construction of a deck. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D) "may project..not more than 50% into a required rear yard."

Mr. Nadaud commented we are looking at a deck that is 12í x 30í. Mr. Taylor added the patio is already there, and it is a deck with a ramp for her to get off (wheelchair). It will be slanted about 10" in 10 feet. Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance, and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker and Mrs. Boice. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

The Board discussed the time for the on-site inspection of Mr. Kingís property, and determined they would meet at 7:00 P.M. Monday evening, October 23rd.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn and Mr. Young seconded the motion. j All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 10:12 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________,1995 _______________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

_______________________1995 ________________________

Wilton Blake, Secretary