DRAFT
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2003
MINUTES
CALL
TO ORDER:
Cherry Linder, Chairman
ROLL CALL:
James Rinehart, Cherry Linder,
Pat Cain, Brian Leary, and Mark Pyles were present. Robert Bender was absent.
Also present was Doug Miller and Leeann Shroder.
Cherry
Linder
Ms. Linder swore in
those persons who will be giving testimony.
MINUTES:
Minutes Board of Zoning
Appeals, August 14th,
There was a motion _by
Mark Pyles to approve the
Aug. 14th, 2003 minutes as written. There was a second _by Pat Cain.
Roll Call Mark Pyles-Yes, James
Rinehart-Abstained, Cherry Linder-Abstained, Pat Cain-Yes and Brian Leary-Yes.
The motion was approved.
CASE
2003-499
3152 Vivian Drive, Accessory garage request to allow to be built in the side
yard of a single family residence.
Staff
Presentation
Tim Hershner gave the description of the property. He said under Section 25.12B
all detached accessory buildings are to be in the rear yard. This garage is
already built and is in the side yard. Mr. Hershner made reference to some
color photos in the board member’s packets. He said the builder installed the
garage and the owner, Sonja Mize, assumed the builder had obtained the proper
permits. After Ms. Mize realized the builder had not gotten the permits and the
zoning department realized the situation, she was given a letter from the zoning
department to let her know she was not in compliance. Mr. Hershner said in the
event this board recommends approval of this case there are 3 conditions as
follows:
1.
The detached
garage shall be completed as shown on the submitted plan.
2.
Any additional
future accessory structures on the property must be located in the rear yard,
setback no less than 5 feet from rear and side property lines. The total floor
area of all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than thirty-five (35)
percent of the area of the required rear yard, or 1530 square feet. The area of
the subject garage is 316 square feet, so an additional 1214 square feet of
accessory structure would be permitted.
3.
The existing row
of six foot deciduous shrubs along the east property line shall be maintained in
healthy condition and replaced as necessary. Mr. Hershner said under #3 the
additional 1214 square feet limit could possibly allow a deck or something like
that.
DRAFT Proponent Sonja Mize,
3152 Vivian Drive,
Loveland, stated that the builder did the garage and did not finish it. Ms. Mize
said she has an attorney. She said the garage is still unfinished. She still
needs a ramp and leaf guard gutters installed like she has on her home.
Attorney Richard Hurchanik,
110 North 3rd Street,
Hamilton, said there is a lawsuit in process. He said the builder obtained an
attorney and the garage is not finished. He said Ms. Mize trusted this builder
to do the job right. Ms. Mize paid $17,660 to this builder. Mr. Hurchanik said
this lady has been cheated. The builder took a check for her to apply for a
variance and that is when she realized he wasn’t going to follow through with
it. Ms. Linder asked Mr. Hurchanik the builder’s name. Mr. Hurchanik said his
name is Darrell Johnson and he built the garage without plans. Ms. Linder asked
if there was a contract and Mr. Hurchanik said it was verbal. Mr. Hurchanik
said Ms. Mize is an elderly widow and she maintains her house in an attractive
manor. Mark Pyles said the siding looks like it matches the house. Ms. Mize
said she requested that the garage siding, gutters, and roof match her home.
Pat Cain asked her if she gave the builder a check. Ms. Mize said she found a
paper from the zoning department in her door and she had to pay for a
variance. She wrote a $300 check made out to
Deerfield Township for the
variance and the builder did not give it to the township. Ms. Mize then wrote a
second $300check to cover this hearing tonight. Ms. Mize said if she is being
fined $100 a day for not being in compliance with her garage, how she will be
able to pay for it. Doug Miller said the way that works is that letter she
received is more or less a warning letter. Mr. Miller told her she has not been
officially charged yet for the violation so there is no $100 per day cost. Mr.
Hurchanik said Ms. Mize was taken advantage of and is a victim here. Ms. Linder
closed the open portion of the case.
Board Discussion
Pat Cain said it is obvious she
maintains her property very beautifully. Mr. Cain asked Tim Hershner if
adjoining property owners have been notified. Mr. Hershner said a sign was put
up to notify and he did receive some calls with questions. Mark Pyles asked
Doug Miller, is it the home owner or the builder responsible to get the
permits. Doug Miller said ultimately the property owner is responsible but that
is why you have a general contractor on jobs. Mr. Pyles said we can have some
flexibility because of the ample setback and he doesn’t have a problem with
this. Ms. Linder asked everyone on the board to look at the conditions. Doug
Miller said the conditions are fine. Ms. Linder said on #3 a statement should
be added that the shrubs along the east property line should be maintained and
whoever lives there or whoever owns the bushes, that the shrubs should stay.
Doug Miller said those bushes are there to provide a buffer to those neighbors.
Mr. Miller said if those neighbors remove the bushes, that is their problem.
Brian Leary said if a breezeway had been put in, they could go all the way over
to 5 feet from the line. James Rinehart said #3 needs to be deleted.
Motion There was a motion by Pat
Cain that Case 2003-499 be approved with 2
Conditions.
1
The detached
garage shall be completed as shown on the
submitted plan.
2
Any additional
future accessory structures on the property must be located in the rear yard,
setback no less than 5 feet from rear and side property lines. The total floor
area of all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than thirty-five (35)
percent of the area of the required rear yard, or 1530 square feet. The area of
the subject garage is 316 square feet, so an additional 1214 square feet of
accessory structure would be permitted.
There was a 2nd by Mark Pyles.
Roll Call James Rinehart-Yes,
Cherry Linder-Yes, Pat Cain-Yes, Mark Pyles-Yes, and Brian Leary-Yes The
motion was approved.
DRAFT
NEW
BUSINESS Review
& Approval of 2004 Calendar of Board of Zoning Appeals Calendar. There was
discussion on the 2004 calendar and dates in November.
Motion There was a motion by Brian
Leary to approve the 2004 BZA meeting schedule as presented. There was a second
by James Rinehart.
Roll Call James Rinehart-Yes,
Cherry Linder-Yes, Pat Cain-Yes, Mark Pyles-Yes, and Brian Leary-Yes
The motion was approved.
OTHER
NEW BUSINESS Tim
Hershner asked the board for their direction. Mr. Hershner said Kevin Fehring,
the zoning inspector, has raised an issue with an application for Borcherding
Collision Center and their request for wall signs. There formerly was a Subaru dealership at that location. Now the collision
center has a car rental service. This zoning department has had a history of
allowing multiple wall signs for instance, Kings Ford, but by code, one wall
sign is allowed, with a maximum a 150 lineal feet. While our code does say
cumulative, it does say one wall sign and one ground monument sign. Tim asked
the board for their opinion. Doug Miller says if this board interprets the code
that you can only have one sign of 150 lineal feet, then staff may as well
assume that interpretation, if the board agrees. Tim said it is in the code
under page 104, Section 22.10 paragraph B, under 1, small letter a. It says
that each occupant is allowed to have a sign but they do have two
occupants, the collision center and the car rental.
Cherry Linder asked Tim where
it says “just one wall sign” and Tim said under the small letter a, it says
“each occupant.” Pat Cain said it should be cumulative, so many square feet of
sign for so much frontage. Doug Miller asked, “When you say maximum cumulative
sign face area, is that the wall sign plus the ground mounted sign?” Tim said
we look at that as just the wall sign. Tim said the ground mounted could be 35
square feet and the wall sign could be up to 150 square feet. Tim said the
question is, “are they limited to only one sign?”
James Rinehart said he commends Kevin since he is trying to
do the best he can for the township but he is like Pat, we look at square
footage. Doug asked if this is being looked at in our zoning code text changes
(revisions). Tim said yes it will be. Brian Leary said the worst case scenario
is having 4 businesses in there and 4 signs on the wall as long as it is under
150 square feet cumulatively. That is what Kevin is trying to prevent.
Cherry Linder said these rules
apply to strip centers. Ms. Linder said it is two businesses they should each
be allowed to have their sign but not to exceed 150 square feet. Ms. Linder it
is determined by how many occupants. Tim said on office buildings, each tenant
gets a sign, that wouldn’t be good. Tim said in some of the offices north of
Lowe’s most are allowed 2 tenant wall signs for the anchor tenant and then the
others only have their name on their front glass door. Doug said he interprets
it to read one business can have a sign up to 150 square feet, but if you have
two businesses, those two signs must add up to a cumulative of 150 square feet.
Doug said it is one wall sign per business but the signage cannot exceed 150
square feet, no matter how many businesses have signs there. Tim showed the
Borcherding proposed sign. Tim said it is 88 square feet.
There was more discussion. Mark Pyles said he wondered how
often the literal interpretation of the code could force someone into having to
go to the appeal process. Tim said almost all the
auto dealerships have more than one wall sign.
DRAFT Doug Miller said the code is clear to him that
you get ONE wall sign and after that if there is more than one wall sign because
there is more than one occupant, those signs cannot total more than 150 square
feet. Mr. Miller said if it is a matter of that’s what the code says and
everyone keeps coming in for a variance, and everyone keeps getting a variance,
then the code needs to be changed.
Cherry Linder thanked Tim for
this discussion on the interpretation. Chris Burns with ATA Architecture,
was present on behalf of Borcherding.
There was discussion about logos and whether they are signs.
Doug Miller said a logo is a sign. Pat Cain said he supports that rule that the
cumulative sign space be in compliance. Doug Miller said if people keep asking
for variances, and keep getting variances, then the code may need to be
changed. Doug said different people interpret the code different ways. Mark
Pyles says a literal interpretation of the code provides the opportunity to look
at the situation in a “case by case” basis, saying does this make sense. Doug
Miller said the purpose of the board is to look at those cases and say “it’s
okay in this case, it’s not okay in this case.” Mark Pyles said it is Kevin’s
job to enforce the code. Mr. Pyles said if it was simply a matter of enforcing
this code, there would be no reason for this board. Mr. Pyles said he thinks
Borchering should apply for a variance. Doug Miller said the problem is how
many signs are allowed. Doug said if someone came in with 10 signs but they
total less than 150 square feet. James Rinehart said this should be on a case
by case basis. Brian Leary said many communities in their code will give a
bonus on their signage on walls if they don’t have any free standing signs.
Pat Cain excused himself from the meeting at
8:00 PM.
There was discussion on the dates of the changes to the
zoning code book.
Cherry Linder realized her code book was old and she needs a different one.
Tim gave her another book. Tim said Mark Pyles thinks Borcherding should come
back in. Mark said if the zoning inspector thinks in his best judgment this
should come before the board. Doug Miller said if you just tell staff, “don’t
worry about it,” you get others coming in wanting to do the same thing. Cherry
Linder said she doesn’t think it is quite right to take a pole to see what the
board’s opinion is. Doug Miller said do these people need to come in? The
board agreed that Borcherding must come before this board.
OTHER NEW BUSINESS
James Rinehart
asked Doug Miller about the final decision on the CHCA case. Doug said the
discussion of that case must be done in executive session.
8:10 PM Executive Motion by Mark Pyles to enter into
Executive Session. There was a second
Session by James Rinehart.
Roll Call
James Rinehart-Yes,
Cherry Linder-Yes, Pat
Cain-Yes, Mark Pyles-Yes, and Brian Leary-Yes
The motion was approved
ADJOURNMENT
8:20 PM
|
