[00:00:01]
[ AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS City Hall - Council Chambers 6131 Taylorsville Road April 5, 2023 6:00 P.M.]
I SHOULD CALL THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO ORDER ITEM SECRETARY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MR. DAVIDSON? HERE.AND MR. DEAN DID, UH, EMAIL US THAT HE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, SO WE DO NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE HIS ABSENCE.
MAY I HAVE, HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MR. DEAN'S? ABSENT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MR. DEAN'S ABSENCE.
AND SECOND THAT MR. DEAN'S ABSENCE FOR TONIGHT IS APPROVED.
WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE ORDER OF OUR WRITTEN, UH, AGENDA.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO PROVE OVER MINUTES.
WE HAVE ONE SETS OF MINUTES TO BE APPROVED.
IT WAS FOR MARCH 1ST, 2023 MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES? OKAY.
SEEING NO COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS? NO MINUTES FOR MARCH 1ST, 2023 ARE APPROVED.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING? I'M MOVED TO APPROVE TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
COULD I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
AND SECOND THAT THE AGENDA FOR, UM, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5TH, 2023 IS APPROVED.
WE WILL PROCEED TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE, ON THE AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH, WISH TO SPEAK OR GIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING, UM, THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING NEEDS TO BE SWORN IN.
I WILL ASK EVERYONE TO RAISE, STAND, AND RAISE A RIGHT HAND AND RESPOND.
TO THE FOLLOWING OATH, DO YOU HEREBY SWEAR OR AFFIRM ON THE THREAT OF PERJURY TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO.
ANYONE THAT MAY WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT AFTER THE CASE IS REVIEW, UH, REVIEWED BY AND THE STAFF GIVE THEIR REPORT, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PLACE YOUR NAME ON THIS SHEET.
THERE'S A SIGN IN SHEET RIGHT ON, ON TOP OF THE, UH, PODIUM.
WE'LL PROCEED SINCE THERE IS NO OLD BUSINESS FOR THIS EVENING.
WE WILL PROCEED TO OUR NEW BUSINESS.
AND I'M GONNA SPELL THIS NAME.
UM, I DON'T MEAN TO BE MISPRONOUNCE IT, BUT I'M GOING TO MISPRONOUNCE IT.
I CAN ALREADY SEE THE APPLICANT OSMA MATADOR.
IT'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1180 1.04 E PROJECTIONS TO CONSTRUCT THE REAR PATIO COVER PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 61 0 5 BUTTON BUSH STREET.
DON, CAN, COULD YOU GIVE, READ THE REPORT FOR US PLEASE? YES, MA'AM.
THANKS FOR COMING OUT ON A RATHER RAINY EVENING.
UH, THE APPLICANT OWNER IS REQUESTING OF VARIANCE OF THE CITY OF HUBER RIGHTS ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM PROJECTION FOR ARREAR PATIO COVER.
THE OWNER WISHES TO CONSTRUCT A REAR PATIO COVER AND THE DESIGN CALLS FOR THE COVER TO EXTEND 18 FEET BEYOND THE REAR MOST FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE.
THIS RESULTS IN THE PROPOSED COVER EXCEEDING CODE BY TWO FEET IN PROJECTION SECTION 1180 1.04 E OF THE ZONING CODE.
STATE'S QUOTE, A PATIO COVER OR PORCH SHALL NOT PROJECT INTO THE SIDE OR REAR YARD MORE THAN 16 FEET FROM THE BUILDING LINE OF THE DWELLING PROVIDED.
IT DOES NOT COME NEAR TO THE SIDE OR REAR LOT LINE THAN FIVE FEET.
THEREFORE, THE VARIANCE THE APPLICANT REQUIRES A VARIANCE AS STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTY, THE LOTUS APPROXIMATELY 0.37 ACRES.
THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
THE STRUCTURE IS A REAR PATIO COVER.
ZONING REMINDS THE APPLICANT WHO IS NOT HERE, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS 14 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AT ANY POINT.
I'M ASSERTING THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH THAT BEING STRESSED TO PEOPLE IN THE PAST.
YOU'LL NOTICE THERE IS A CONVOLUTED REAR PAD, UH, REAR FOUNDATION BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE HOUSE, THE REAR MOST FOUNDATION IS CONSIDERED THE REAR FOUNDATION.
UH, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO COMMENT OR CONCERN WITH THIS PROJECT.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
DO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. MALLARD? I, I APPRECIATE YOU DEFINITELY MAKING A COMMENT ABOUT THE 14 FEET.
I THINK WE'VE HAD THAT PROBLEM BEFORE, SO, YEAH.
AND YES, AND I WAS HOPING THE APPLICANT WOULD BE PRESENT, BUT, UH, HE MAY BE WATCHING AS WE.
[00:05:01]
I APPRECIATE THAT.WELL, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE CASE AND WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE, UH, RE I'M GOING TO READ THE VERY AS FOLLOW.
SO CLOSING THE CASE FOR CASE 2303, AND I WILL PROCEED TO READ THE VARIANCE.
EACH VARIANCE HAS TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE FOR EACH VARIANCE, SO I WILL PROCEED.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WILL YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN OR WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VA, THE VARIANCE MATTER.
SECRETARY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MR. DAVIDSON? YES.
WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL? YES.
WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL ALTER OR WHETHER ADJOURNING PROPERTIES WOULD SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT AS A RO RESULT OF THE VARIANCE? MR. SCHAFFER? NO.
WHETHER THE VARIS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES SUCH AS WATER, SANITARY SEWAGE, OR GARBAGE REMOVAL? MR. DAVIDSON? NO.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE, OF THE ZONING RESTRICTION, MR. MOCK? YES.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER PREDICAMENT FEAS PLEA CAN BE REVERTED THROUGH SOME OTHER METHOD OTHER THAN A VARIANCE.
WHETHER THE SPIRIT OR INTENT BEHIND THE ZONING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE OBSERVED, UM, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
CAN I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVING SECOND THAT THE VARIANCE FOR CASE 2304.
LET ME CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD.
IS THERE A QUESTION ON THE MOTION? THERE IS NO QUESTION ON THE MOTION.
MAY I HAVE A VOTE, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL PROCEED TO THE NEXT CASE.
THE NEXT CASE IS V Z A CASE 2304.
BILL CON CONTRACTING IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 11 23 0 2 ACCESSORY USE AND 11 92 0 1 LOCATION.
LET ME CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD.
11 91 0 1 LOCATION AND HEIGHT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 84 89.
WHAT'S THAT? BELL BELLCO BELL BE COURT, IT'S GONE.
NOW THE OWNER, DAN CROSS, IS REQUESTING VARIANCES OF THE CITY OF YOU BRIDE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ABSENT OF PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.
IN THIS CASE, THAT WOULD BE A HOUSE AND EXCEEDING THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 14 FEET.
THE OWNER RESIDES NEXT DOOR AT 84 67.
BE COURT AND WISHES TO CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN ON THE VACANT PROPERTY AT 84 8 89.
BE COURT 84 89 BE COURT AT ONE TIME HAD A HOME, WHICH BURNED AND WHOSE OWNER AT THE TIME CHOSE NOT TO REBUILD.
MR. CROSS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN AUGUST OF 2021 AND WISHES TO CONSTRUCT A 40 BY 40 POLE BARN, WHICH QUALIFIES AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SECTION 1120 3.02 OF THE ZONING CODE READS AS FOLLOWS, ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE MEANS A BUILDING
[00:10:01]
OR USE, WHICH IS SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL USE TO THAT AND THE MAIN BUILDING OR USE ON THE SAME LOT.SINCE THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE PRINCIPLE USE OF MAIN BUILDING MUST BE A DWELLING.
NO DWELLING EXISTS FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO BE SUBORDINATE IN TWO.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT REQUIRES A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE ACCESSORY BUILDING.
IF THE BOARD RULES IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE ACCESSORY BUILDING.
THE OWNER PLANS FOR THE BUILDING TO HAVE A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 19 AND A HALF FEET.
SECTION 1190 1.01 OF THE ZONING CODE LIMITS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, TOTAL HEIGHT TO 14 FEET.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT REQUIRES A VARIANCE OF FIVE AND A HALF FEET TO EXCEED THE 14 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION, ALLOWING A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 19.5 FEET.
STAFF ANALYSIS THAT LOTS APPROXIMATELY 0.8 ACRES.
THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
THE PLACEMENT IS ABOUT 179 FEET OFF OF THE ROAD.
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO COMMENTS ON THIS CASE.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
DO THE BOARD HAVE WITH THIS BEFORE FOR THE RECORD? UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS LIKE, ALMOST LIKE TWO INDIVIDUAL CASES.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS START WITH THE FIRST YES.
I JUST WANT THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW THAT.
SO WE ARE DEALING WITH THE FIRST PART, 1120 3.02.
DO UH, ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE, UM, FOR THE STAFF MEMBER BEFORE I LET, UM, THE INDIVIDUALS OUT IN THE AUDIENCE COME TO THE PODIUM? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE STAFF? I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UM, AND I DIDN'T CATCH THIS TILL NOW.
THIS ONE IS ZONED R TWO RESIDENTIAL COMPARED TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY.
IS THAT THE SAME, SAME THING THING.
IT'S JUST THE WAY IT'S SPREAD OUT? IT IS, IT IS, YEAH.
THE, THE SETBACK AND LOT REQUIREMENTS ARE MORE SUBSTANTIAL FOR AN R TWO, BUT IT'S A STILL A STABLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT.
I I HAVE A QUESTION I GUESS FOR THE CITY AS WELL.
UM, IF THIS PROPERTY WERE REZONED TO, UH, TO BE IN ESTATE PROPERTY, WOULD A VARIANCE STILL BE REQUIRED? YES.
IT STILL REQUIRES A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IF YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING, CUZ AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IS DEFINED AS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
UH, A YOU KNOW, A POLE BARN BEING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING HAS TO HAVE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE A DWELLING.
AND THERE REALLY WOULD BE NO PRACTICAL REASON.
THE TWO ARE REZONING BECAUSE AN R TWO, EVEN IF SOMEONE, LET'S SAY IN, IN 10 YEARS, MR. CROSS DECIDES TO SELL WITH THIS POSITION OF THIS BARN ON THAT PROPERTY, THERE WOULD BE AMPLE ROOM FOR SOMEONE TO PURCHASE THAT AND BUILD A HOUSE IN FRONT OF IT.
SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO DO THAT? I'M NOT SAYING HE'S GOING TO, BUT IF HE CHOSE TO, SO, UM, REZONING TO AN ESTATE, I DON'T SEE THAT THAT WOULD SERVE A PURPOSE IN THIS CASE.
BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED APPLIED FOR CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO, TO CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THEM.
I, I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO REFER TO WAS COULD THE TWO PROPERTIES BE REZONED INTO A SINGLE PROPERTY THAT'S AN ESTATE PROPERTY, MAKING IT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING? THEY COULD BE, UH, DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT WAS APPLIED FOR AND WAS THEN, UH, APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WOULD IT STILL REQUIRE A RE RESORTING PERIOD? YES, BECAUSE IT, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.
AND AS I SEE IT RIGHT NOW, IT'S ABOUT ALIGNED UP WITH THE HOUSE SIDE TO SIDE.
IS THAT CORRECT? I'M DEFERRING TO THE WE HAVE THE FENCE HOUSE.
WE HAVE A FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND FRONT MOVE THIS OKAY.
SO FOR THE RECORD, SINCE SHE'S COMING UP TO THE POINT, COULD YOU, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD? DANIEL R. CROSS.
UH, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS, THE HOUSE WE LIVE ON IS 87 6.
AND WE HAVE FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTIES.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE FENCE AROUND BOTH PROPERTIES.
WE MOVED A PRIVACY FENCE AND PUT A CHAIN LEAD FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND THEM.
AND, UH, SO FROM THE FENCE BACK 40 FEET, ISN'T IT? YEAH, 40, UH, PUT IT.
AND THAT'S 40 FEET BEHIND WHERE THE HOUSE THAT BURNT DOWN WAS AT.
SO MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO CLARIFY MR. SCHAFFER'S QUESTION, UH, AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN RESPECT TO YOUR HOUSE ON THE OTHER LOT.
OH, ARE THEY PRETTY MUCH SIDE BY THE WAY I LOOKED AT IT? YEAH, IT'S, GO AHEAD.
IT'S 40 FEET BEHIND THE HOUSE THAT WE LIVE IN NOW.
22 FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE EAST SIDE.
SO BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, IF THEY WERE
[00:15:01]
COMBINED, IF THEY WERE TO GO OUT THE LOT, TWO LOTS INTO ONE, THEN THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THIS WOULD BE TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT PART.I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WERE GOING.
BUT I NEED TO VERIFY A VARI THIS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
UH, THAT'S CORRECT, BUT IT WOULD BE, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
JUST A SECONDARY VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT TO DIFFERENT VARIANCES.
FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, BUT NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF BEFORE WE, UH, LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK AND YOU WANNA ASK THE APPLICANT? YES, I DO.
MR. MALLARD, YOU SAID WHERE IF HE'S SAYING IT'S GOING 40 FEET PAST WHERE HIS HOUSE IS MM-HMM.
AND THERE'S HUNDREDS OF FEET OF FRONTAGE IN FRONT OF THIS.
SO THERE WOULD BE AMPLE ROOM, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYTHING SIR, THAT YOU WISH TO? UH, NO.
IT IS COMMENT ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT BE ANY HIGHER THAN THE HOUSE IS.
CAN WE KEEP THAT'S THAT'S, THAT'S THE, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THAT WILL BE THE SECOND PART OF THIS.
WE'RE DEALING WITH THE FIRST RIGHT NOW.
UH, I, I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, I HEARD YOU TALKING ABOUT, SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, OKAY.
YEAH, I KNOW IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING ON THAT AND NEXT REASON.
SO WE DOING WHAT? THAT FIRST PART ABOUT THE, UM, THE ACCESSORY USE OF THE BIL VARIANCE TO, TO PLACE IT DURING, UM, THE FIRST PART.
SO THAT'S THE PART WE'RE DEALING WITH.
JUST FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE LINE.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING, ANY OF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? THE STRUCTURE, PLACEMENT STRUCTURE THERE? OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANTS, I MEAN, ANYTHING THAT THE APPLICANTS DON'T WANNA SAY, WE CAN MOVE ON AND CLOSE THIS CASE AND VOTE ON THIS PART OF IT, THEN WE'LL GO TO THE SECOND PART OF IT.
SO I, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO IF, IF THE PROPERTY WAS ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY YES.
AND THE POLE BARN WAS BEHIND THE HOUSE AND WE COULD CALL IT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
THEN IT HAS TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE PURPOSE OF THE HOUSE.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE BARN? STORAGE.
I'VE GOT A TRUCK AND BE UP THE HOUSE AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I, I DO, UH, LET'S CROSS THERE.
IS THERE ANY, UH, CHANCES TO PUT IT BEHIND YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND KEEP THAT LOT AS, AS FAR AS THE OPEN LOT? WE, I GUESS WE COULD HAVE, BUT IT, IT WOULD, THE ACCESS TO IT WOULD BE HORRIBLE.
UH, WE HAVE ACCESS ON THAT PROPERTY WHERE THERE PUT HOUSEWORK DOWN.
SO THERE WAS ALREADY A DRIVEWAY THERE AND I PUT THE CHAIN OF FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY AND WE HAVE ACCESS TO WHERE THE POLE BAR OVER THERE AND THE DRIVEWAY'S OVER THERE.
I JUST GOT THE LITTLE BIT OF, AND WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO TO DO THE OTHER SIDE, I WOULD HAVE TO TEAR UP MY BACKYARD AND GO ON EXISTING PROPERTY.
AND WE HAVE TO, WE ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION A LOT MORE THAN WHAT BE HERE.
THAT'S ITS EASY ACCESS FOR ME.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'M GONNA CLOSE THE CASE OF, UM, THE FIRST PART OF THIS CASE, 2304.
UM, AND I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE AND WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS.
THEN WE'LL GO TO THE SECOND PART OF THE CASE.
SO I'M GOING TO START READING THE VARIANCE FOR THE FIRST, THE, UM, VARIANCE FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WILL YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN OR WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY BENEFITS USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE MATTER.
SECRETARY, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MR. MOCK? YES.
WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL.
WHETHER ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED OR WHETHER AJOUR PROPERTY WOULD, WOULD SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT AS A RESULT OF THE VARIANCE.
WHETHER THE VARIOUS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL
[00:20:01]
SERVICES SUCH AS WATER, SANITARY SEWAGE, OR GARBAGE REMOVAL? MR. MOCK? NO.WERE THE PROPERTY ONLY PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS? MR. SCHAFFER? I'M GONNA GUESS NO.
WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER PREDICTING FEASIBLY CAN BE REVERT THROUGH SOME OTHER METHOD OTHER THAN A VARIANCE.
WHETHER SPIRIT INTENT BEHIND THE ZONING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
WHAT WAS IT? NOW WE NEED A MOTION.
CAN I GET A, UH, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ON BZA A CASE 23 DASH OH FOUR SECTION 1123 DASH OH TWO AND I'LL SECOND IT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. DAVIDSON AND SECOND BY MR. SCHAFFER, THAT, UH, WE APPROVE THAT THE MOTION BE APPROVED FOR THE FIRST PART OF THIS, UH, CASE 2304.
THE, UH, THE SECTION 1120 3.02.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? NO QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION.
MAY I HAVE, HAVE A ROLL CALL? MR. SCHAFFER? NO.
SO THE VARI, UM, WAS NOT PASSED.
WOULD THAT IN MIND THE SECOND PART OF THIS, IF I'M CORRECT FOR THE RECORD, UM, THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE COMMISSION TO THE, THIS COMMISSION TO HEAR THE SECOND PART OF THIS, UM, CASE BECAUSE THE FIRST PART HAS FAILED FOUR TO ZERO.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YOU CAN GO UP TO THE PODIUM.
SO YOU'RE SAYING I'M NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD THE BARN THERE IS WHAT I'M NO SIR.
AND BUT IF I COMBINE THE PROPERTIES I COULD IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME? THOSE YOU HAVE TO GIVE WITH THE CITY ON THAT? THAT'S ON.
I'M WILLING TO MAKE, I I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UH, IF, IF YOU APPLY TO COMBINE THE PROPERTIES INTO ONE LOT, UM, THEN, AND IF THAT'S APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN BECAUSE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD THEN BE TO THE REAR OF YOUR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, THEN YOU WOULD, UH, BE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD THEN EXCEED, STILL EXCEED THE 14 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
UH, YOU WOULD ALSO NEED TO RESUBMIT TO IT FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT.
AND OUR CHARTER SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR THE SAME REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TO.
SO THERE ARE SOME EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, IF YOU WERE TO COMBINE THE LOTS INTO ONE LOT, THEN YES, THE LOCATION BECOMES A MOOT ISSUE.
IT IS ONLY THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE 19 AND A HALF FEET.
THAT WOULD REMAIN AN ISSUE THAT WOULD REQUIRE NOW, RIGHT? NO, BECAUSE THAT IS NO LONGER, SINCE THE BUILDING IS NOT BEING ALLOWED, THERE'S NO REASON TO VOTE ON THE VARIANCE UNLESS THE BOARD FEELS THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE HEIGHT LIMITATION ON A PROPOSED BUILDING.
IF I, IF I GO AHEAD MR. SCHAFFER.
UM, I, I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE DO DO THAT TONIGHT.
UM, TO ENSURE THAT THE, THE PROPERTY, YOUR DOESN'T WASTE HIS TIME IF THE BOARD DECIDES NOT TO APPROVE.
SO I THINK IF WE APPROVE NOW, UM, THEN I THINK THAT GIVES YOU A, A MUCH BETTER FEELING GOING FORWARD.
THAT YOU'RE NOT SPENDING TIME AND MONEY WAS WASTED.
[00:25:01]
I UNDERSTAND.HAVE YOU GUYS EVER BEEN BACK TO WHERE WE LIVED? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE PROPERTY? YES.
AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S AGRICULTURE TO THE EAST OF ME OR RIGHT BESIDE THIS AGRICULTURE BEHIND ME.
SO I WAS WONDERING WHAT IS THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE? I DO.
I MEAN, AM MY HEARING'S NOT THAT GREAT? I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT PUTTING THE BUILDING THERE.
I, I CAN ADDRESS FROM MY STANDPOINT IF I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND WHY.
I MEAN, I OWN THE PROPERTY AND I, THE HOUSE, WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, UH, THERE WAS BROKEN CONCRETE STICKING UP OUT OF THE GROUND WITH A REBARB THAT I HAD TO PAY TO CLEAN OUT WHERE THIS GUY JUST LEFT HIM.
AND HE ACTUALLY BUILT A POLE BARN IN HIS, UH, AND TORE UP HIS PATIO THERE AND BROUGHT IT AND DUMPED IT AT HIS PROPERTY.
I HAD TO PAY TO GET ALL THAT STUFF OUT OF THERE TO MAKE THE PROPERTY LOOK LIKE THIS.
I FENCED IN THE PROPERTY TO MAKE IT SAFE.
AND THERE WAS, I MEAN, AESTHETICALLY, I MEAN, I CAN'T IMAGINE THIS POLE BARN BEING UGLY TO ANYBODY.
SO WHAT IS YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT BEING THERE? SO IF I MAY, UM, AT LEAST FROM MY STANDPOINT, AND I WON'T SPEAK FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD.
BUT FROM MY STANDPOINT, UM, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE IN PLACE.
AND SO, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO A VARIANCE TO THIS VARIANCE, THE SPECIFIC PART OF THIS VARIANCE, UM, AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS ZONED, RIGHT? WHICH IS A CITY THING, TYPICALLY WE TRY TO STAY AS CLOSE AS WE CAN TO THE WAY THE POLICY IS WRITTEN.
SO BY REZONING IT, YOU WOULD BE IN BETTER COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS OUTLAID AS, AS HOW THEY WANT THE CITY TO BE MANAGED.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE CITY, BUT THIS, I GET, I DON'T HAVE ANY, THE AMENITIES OF A CITY.
I AM OUT THERE, WE'RE ON AN ISLAND OUT THERE, THERE'S WATER ALL AROUND US.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE AMENITIES.
AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME I CAN'T PUT A POLE BARN ON A PROPERTY THAT I PURCHASED FROM SOMEBODY THAT I ACTUALLY TOOK IT, IT WAS A SAFETY HAZARD BEFORE I PURCHASED IT.
AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME I CAN'T PUT A POLE BARN THERE.
EVEN THOUGH I PUT IT BACK SO FAR, SOMEBODY WAS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND THEY WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE.
I MADE ENOUGH LEAVING ENOUGH ROOM FOR 'EM TO PUT THE HOUSE THERE, THE STRUCTURE THERE, AND PUT A LEACH BED AND DO EVERYTHING.
AND, UH, AND WANDA AND I ARE NOT GETTING YOUNGER.
AND IF I WANTED TO PUT A ONE, WE GOT A, A HOUSE THAT'S GOT FOUR FLIGHTS OF STAIRS IN IT.
AND IF I WANTED TO PUT A HOUSE THERE LATER, I'D HAVE, I WANNA PUT A ONE, UH, MAYBE ONE STORY RANCH.
BUT THE PAUL BARN WOULDN'T IT, IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE PROPERTY.
SO I DON'T WANNA UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.
WELL, HOW IS THIS DETRIMENTAL TO THAT PROPERTY? CAN I GO AHEAD ADDRESS THAT? LIKE MR. SCHAFFER SAID, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID.
YOU KNOW, WHEN OUR VARIANCES ARE SPECIFIC FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, THIS IS DOES NOT HAVE A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
NOW, IF YOU HAD A HOUSE THERE, PUT THE POLE BARN LATER, OF COURSE THAT'S DOING IN, YOU KNOW, THE PROCEDURE, YOU SHOULD BE DOING IT.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU ABOUT A POLE BARN BEHIND YOUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW SINCE YOUR LOCKED IS, WELL YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT.
IT UH, GOES DOWNHILL AND IT GETS WET IN THAT AREA.
THAT AREA THAT I WANNA PUT IT IS ON A HIGHER SPOT.
IT, UH, DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROPERTY AND CAUSE IT GETS SWAMPY BEHIND THE HOUSE.
THAT'S NOT WHERE YOU WANT TO BUILD.
I BUILD IT ON AN AREA THAT IS FIRM AND HIGHER THAN THE REST.
BUT THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A POLE BARN WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE THERE, WHICH PUTS A, YOU KNOW, MONKEY WRENCH INTO IT LATER ON FOR SELLING IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO ALLEVIATE FROM THAT AND, AND GIVE YOU OTHER OPTIONS.
WELL MAYBE BEGINNING FOR THIS ONE.
LET'S SAY WE COMBINE THE PROPERTIES AND UH, 10 YEARS FROM NOW WE WANNA PUT A RANCH THERE.
DO I, DO I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCEDURE TO DIVIDE 'EM OR CAN YOU DO THAT AFTER IT'S COMBINED? IS EVERYBODY LOOKING AT ME?
[00:30:04]
IT YOU WOULD'VE AN ISSUE THERE BE YES, BECAUSE AN ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY THE BOARD ALLOWS ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS.IF YOU WERE, SO YOUR WHOLE, IF YOU HAVE ONE WHOLE PROPERTY, THESE TWO ARE COMBINED INTO ONE, THEN YOU WOULD BE BACK IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU WOULD BE BUILDING ANOTHER HOME ON ONE LOT.
AND AN A STATE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS NOT A PERMITTED USE.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A SPECIAL USE EITHER OR CONDITIONAL USE.
DID ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS OR ANYTHING? I RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS AND I DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBOR ON ONE SIDE.
IT'S NOT HURTING THE PROPERTY.
THE ONLY THING, I MEAN THE ZONING.
I HAVE SEEN BUILDINGS A LOT TALLER THAN I WANT BEING BUILT IN TOWN HERE.
SO I WAS WONDERING HOW THAT HAPPENS.
I JUST REAL DOWN HERE AND I SEE I WANT BEING BUILT BEHIND A GARAGE UP HERE THAT'S GONNA BE WELL OVER THEIR HOUSE.
AND THAT'S REASON I DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS GONNA BE A PROBLEM AT ALL.
I SAID TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES THOUGH, SIR.
WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE SECOND ON THE KEEP IN MIND SIR.
WE AND I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION.
OKAY? WE DON'T GO WITH, IF WE DID SOMETHING BULLET ON SOMETHING THREE MONTHS AGO, WE GONNA USE THAT.
WE, WE LOOK AT THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND WE TRY, WE TRY TO FOLLOW THAT.
AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU ON THAT.
UH, ORDER, IT JUST SURPRISED ME.
CAUSE I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THE PLACE LOOK BAD.
I'M TRYING TO IMPROVE SOMETHING.
UM, SO CAN I, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO UH, HEAR THE SECOND PART OF THIS CASE? WELL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT THE OHIO ARMY ROBERT RULES ORDER.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE WE ALREADY VOTED ON THE FIRST PART OF IT.
SO IF WE DO WANT TO DO THIS, IT'S LIKE WE HAVE TO AMEND.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE RESEARCH THIS, WHAT THE ROBERT RULE OF ORDER SAYS.
I HAVE NOT DEALT WITH ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TWO THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND, UM, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE WE ALREADY VOTED ON ONE OF IT.
IF WE'RE GONNA ADD THIS TO, IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND WHAT WE DID THE FIRST TO VOTE ON THE SECOND PART OF THIS.
I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.
UM, GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT, EXCESS HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW TO BE BUILT SEEMS A PATH NOWHERE TO ME.
IF THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS DECIDES TO APPLY FOR REZONING, THAT HAS TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY FEELING IS, AND I WOULD CHECK WITH THE CITY PLANNER ON THIS, THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING COULD PROPERLY, MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME.
THERE COULD BE A, UH, A PLAN SUBMITTED FOR COMBINATION OF THE PLOT REZONING AND ALSO, UM, THE HEIGHT OF A PROPOSED BUILDING.
HOWEVER, I WOULD HAVE, I WOULD CONSULT WITH THE CITY PLANNER BEFORE I GAVE AN OPINION ON THAT.
MS. MAR, I KNOW YOU SAID WE CAN'T HEAR THE SAME CASE 23 DASH OH FOUR, YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT OBLIGED TO.
BUT SINCE WE DIDN'T HEAR IT A SECOND PART OF THAT CASE, YEAH, YEAH, I THINK I, AND I THINK YOU, YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE 24, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS IF SOMEONE APPLIES AGAIN FOR THE SAME VARIANCE ON THE SAME PROPERTY, YOU'RE NOT OBLIGED TO HEAR IT WITHIN A YEAR.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T A STICKY LINE.
WE ARE RUNNING A STICKY LINE IF THE, HEY, I'M JUST ONE PERSON, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THE BOARD OR THE CITIZEN.
WE RUN A VERY THIN LINE ON THIS.
BUT IF YOU ALL WANT TO HEAR IT AND VOTE ON IT, THEN AFTER THE MAT, YOU KNOW, I'M TOTALLY FINE FOR LATER.
I WAS JUST SAYING I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO BLOCK OUT THE APPLICANT FOR A YEAR TO HEAR ABOUT THE
WELL, WE CAN MAKE, WE COULD PUT WE DIDN'T YEAH, BUT WE COULD BE PUT IN THE NOTES OR IN THE MINUTES THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A STIPULATION THAT IF HE COMES BACK IN A MONTH OR TWO AND THIS PART OF THE CASE, WE WILL HEAR IT.
AND THAT WOULD BE ON THE, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT COULD BE HANDLED LANDING COMMISSION LEVEL.
IF IT CAN BE ALL HANDLED, THEN THAT THIS IS A MOOT POINT.
[00:35:03]
NO WAY.ON THAT PART OF, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
WE FINALLY GOT, I DIDN'T WANNA CLOSE THEM OUT FOR A YEAR.
UM, LIKE I SAID, THE FIRST PART OF, OF, OF YOUR, UM, REQUEST WAS DENIED.
UM, EVEN THOUGH THE, THE RULES SAY THAT YOU CAN'T COME BACK AFTER, YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR TO HEAR THE OTHER ONE.
WE ARE GONNA MAKE A STIPULATE PUT A STIPULATION WITHIN THE MINUTES OF OUR THING SAYING THAT IF YOU COME BACK TWO MONTHS FROM NOW, THREE MONTHS FROM NOW ON THE, THE SECOND PART OF THIS ABOUT THE HEIGHT LOOK, UH, THE, THE HEIGHT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, UM, THIS, WE WILL HEAR IT.
ANY IDEA HOW LONG IT TAKES TO, TO BUY PROPERTIES? WE DO THAT.
UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO, I'LL DISCUSS THAT WITH THE CITY PLAINTIFF.
THERE'S SOME ENGINEERING INVOLVED.
THERE HAS TO BE A SURVEY DONE.
YOU MAY HAVE MISSED THE, YOUR, YOUR CONTRACTOR MAY HAVE DEALT WITH LAW COMBINATION SITUATIONS BEFORE.
UH, BUT THERE WOULD BE SOME, UH, LOT SURVEYING TO BE DONE, A PROPOSAL TO BE MADE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I, IF THAT'S WHERE YOU DECIDE TO GO.
IF YOU CONTACT ME IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO, THEN I WILL INVOLVE THE CITY PLANNER IN THIS.
SO WHAT, UM, JUST DO ALL YOUR CORRESPONDING WITH THE STAFF, THE CITY STAFF PERSON.
DO WE HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS OR ANY ADDITIONAL, ADDITIONAL, AN ADDITIONAL NEW BUSINESS SINCE THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL NEW BUSINESS UPCOMING MEETINGS, WEDNESDAY MAY 3RD AND WEDNESDAY JUNE 7TH.
MADAM CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVING A SECOND THAT THE MEET MAY ADJOURN.