| DRAFT Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
August 12th, 2004
MINUTES
DRAFT
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS
6:30
PM – AUGUST 12th, 2004
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Robert Bender, Chairman
ROLL
CALL:
Cherry Linder, William Heckman, and
Alternate James Klatte were present. James Rinehart and Brian Leary were
absent with notice. Also present was township attorney
Doug Miller.
Motion There was a motion by Robert
Bender to nominate the vice-chairman at the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the BZA. There was a second by William Heckman.
Roll Call Cherry Linder-Yes,
James Klatte-Yes, William Heckman-Yes Robert Bender-yes The motion was
approved.
MINUTES:
Minutes Board of Zoning
Appeals, July 12th, 2004
There was a motion by Jim
Klatte to approve the minutes of
July 12, 2004, as written. There was a
2nd by William Heckman.
Roll Call James Klatte-Yes,
William Heckman-yes Cherry Linder-Yes Robert Bender – Abstained The motion was
approved.
Old
Business Tim
Hershner said the since the last meeting, he has received a request for
reconsideration on Case 2004-415 which was denied at the last meeting. Robert
Bender asked Tim if he has received additional information since the last
meeting. Tim said the elevation which we had at the last meeting has changed
and in addition to that, there is a willingness to work on some conditions of
approval. Robert Bender pointed out that on the minutes of the last meeting the
applicant’s attorney stopped the board from any further motions. Doug Miller
asked if we are getting more information. Tim said it is a refinement of the
application and changed it a little bit. Robert Bender asked Mr. Miller if it
would be appropriate for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Bender swore the
applicant in. Mr. Bender asked him what is different that we must go though the
whole case again.
Rich
Hartsig, 9755 Barnswood Drive, Loveland, OH,
said he had 3 reasons for appearing. 1)
The board acted in good faith but did not have all the clear and compelling
information from the neighbors. The neighbors called but they didn’t put it in
writing. 2) The board and staff thought it was the size of a warehouse. The
drawing was not adequate to conveythat, and the drawing made it look like a
“carriage barn.” Now he has better drawings. 3) The assumptions from the last
meeting, made it look like he was going to use the garage for operating a
business.
Cherry Linder said if the owner
thought it was that important, he should have re-scheduled this meeting at a
time when he could be there. She said she did not feel there was a hardship.
Cherry said Mr. Hartsig mentioned the neighborhood and she feels the board had
an idea of the neighborhood. She said tax payer moneys were already spent once
to hear the case. On the drawings, she felt they were adequate and she said she
believes they should not hear this case again.
Jim Klatte said there was sufficient
information but not enough. He said they did discuss neighborhood
representation and there was one letter from a neighbor. William Heckman said
there was concern about the size and he believes that clarification on the
garage size would be grounds to re-consider. Doug Miller said if there were an
appeal, it would be a lot more expensive than this board sitting here for an
hour or two.
Robert Bender said he reviewed the
minutes and looked at the property. Mr. Bender said they must find a hardship.
Mr. Bender said if this garage was attached, we wouldn’t be here to talk about
it.
Motion There was a motion by Robert
Bender to re-open Case 2004-415 and hear it again.
There was a 2nd by James
Klatte.
Roll Call James Klatte-Yes,
William Heckman-Yes, Cherry Linder-No, Robert Bender-yes The motion was
approved.Robert Bender did a swearing in of those who would be giving
testimony. He instructed the persons who want to speak to come to the podium
and give their name and address.
CASE 2004-415
9755 Barnswood Drive,
Garage in Side Yard Variance
Staff Report
Mayank Kumar said the zoning code only
allows accessory structures to be in the back yard, not the side yard. He
showed a map with the location of the property. He showed photos of the house.
He said the applicant’s goal was to keep the back yard in a “park like
setting.” He said there is no hardship if the garage would be built in the back
as allowed. Mayank had 3 suggestions for the applicant to be allowed to build
the garage. 1) Move the garage closer to the main house, within 10 feet of the
house. 2) Connect the garage with the main structure with architectural
elements such as trellis, faux walls, breezeway, etc. 3) Use of landscaping for
screening as well as for integration of garage with the main structure. Mayank
said due to a gas line and French drain Mr. Hartsig doesn’t want to move the
garage closer to the house. There has been no easement recorded on the plat.
No structure is allowed to be built on an easement. The staff recommended
approval with 5 conditions as follows:
1. The proposed garage shall be
moved as close to the main residential structure as possible. Relocation of the
proposed garage shall consider any impact on the existing “gas line” and “French
drain” in the side yard. Engineered design for the foundation of the proposed
garage shall be required, if necessary, in order to mitigate any conflict
between the proposed garage structure and the existing “gas line” and “French
drain.”
2.
There shall be some architectural
elements (e.g. faux wall, wooden or concrete trellis, or a breezeway) designed
to achieve “integration” between the proposed garage and the main residential
structure. The color, material, and the roof line of the proposed garage and
the architectural elements shall replicate the main residential structure.
-
The landscaping along the southern property line shall include “A:” type trees
planted at thirty (30) feet center-to-center. A row of bushes shall be
planted to effectively screen the view of garage from Barnswood Lane and
adjacent property to the south, 9771 Barnswood Lane. The landscaping shall
also take into consideration the integration of the main structure and the
proposed garage. All landscaping shall be in compliance with Chapter 21,
Bufferyard and Landscaping, of Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution and shall
be planted outside of any drainage easement.
4.
Prior to the approval of the zoning permit for the proposed garage, location of
the proposed garage, design of the architectural elements, and landscaping plan
as described in Conditions #1, #2, and #3 respectively shall require
review and approval from the Deerfield Township Zoning Administrator.
5. No
detached accessory structure shall be allowed in the rear yard. Mayank asked the
board if there were any questions. Robert Bender asked about Condition #1.
Mayank said there should be some type of architectural feature which would make
it look like it connects. Robert Bender asked if these suggestions would solve
the problem. Mayank said no. Robert Bender concluded that said attached means
enclosed on all sides, not just a covered walkway. Doug Miller said he should
address the structure itself and why you have a hardship.
Richard Hartsig, 9755 Barnswood Drive,
Loveland, OH, said the
hardship is not his family but related to the people in this room. Mr. Hartsig
said the back yard is much more important to him and his neighborhood than his
side yard. He his house sits back far from the street. He said if he builds
his garage where the code permits, the use of the backyard would be limited. He
said he planted 50 trees on his property. Design & Intended Use – Mr. Hartsig
said they have 6 people in the household and he can’t get cars in the garage.
He has a utility trailer for the Cub Scouts with equipment on it. Mr. Hartsig
said his children have lots of stuff. The building would be brick and he plans
to use the upstairs loft area also for storage. He said the picture shown and
the last meeting made the structure look like a carriage barn. He said he pays
$1200 per year at the Landen Store & Lock to store the trailer. Bob Bender
asked him how high is the second story on the side of his house so he could
compare it with the 22 feet garage.
Dana Hartsig, 9755 Barnswood Drive,
Loveland, OH, said she is
13 years old and she will be in the 8th grade. She
displayed on the wall many examples of
free standing garages in the township which are on the side of the homes and not
in compliance with the zoning code. She said many were built several years ago
and even before township zoning but she pointed out one on Vivian Drive which
was approved by this board. Mr. Hartsig said if his gas line was in another
location, he would not be here asking for the variance. The builders said they
should not build over the gas line. Mr. Hartsig said he wouldn’t do something
to his benefit which would hurt his neighbors. He said the view from the
neighbors to his swing set is very important to them. He showed a map
highlighting all of his neighbors who support him and his goal to have the
garage on the side. He showed a map with colored lines showing where he wants
to place the garage, and also showing where the township wants him to put it.
Mr. Hartisig explained how many trees there are and which ones would have to be
removed if the garage were put where the township wants it. He said those
particular trees in the back were there when he moved there. Dana Hartsig showed
a presentation of photos of all the children playing in the back yard during
different seasons of the year. She gave all their names as each photo was shown
and asked the board to approve the variance.
Kellie Groh, 2517 Arborwood Drive,
complained that she
e-mailed her opinion to the Deerfield Township website and was disappointed her
message was not conveyed to the trustees. She explained the expense an addition
her home incurred due to moving an electric line. She said one of the Deerfield
Township Trustees came out to the site looked in person. She said the view
explains the need to put the garage in the side yard instead of the back much
better than a photo does.
Toby Darby, 728 Aspenknoll Drive,
said the garage will look better on the side of the house. He said putting the
garage in the back would make the house will look like a clubhouse. He said on
the side, it would have street appeal.
Ken Klaber, 9771 Barnswood Drive,
likes the park like setting of
Mr. Hartsig’s back yard and is happy that he can view his children as they play
over there.
Gary West, 9748 Barnswood Drive,
lives across the street and he
can view his grandchildren as they play. He said theFrench drain may be
affected if the garage would be put closer to the house.
Robert
Reinders, 3768 Cambridge Court, Loveland, OH,
Cub Scout, Pack 817, want the garage to store their scouting equipment. Robert
Bender closed the public discussion.
Board
Discussion
The board looked at how high up on the
house the top of the garage would be. They said the house is about 18 inches
higher than the garage. Tim Hershner pointed out that the applicant provided a
list of conditions. Cherry Linder asked if the staff conditions are the same
but the board should consider that there is a French drain and a gas line. Jim
Klatte said concerning a necessary hardship, would the hardship be for the
property owner or the neighborhood. Doug Miller asked how many Walnut trees
must be removed if the garage were put in the back yard and he was told 5 trees
would be removed. Cherry Linder congratulated Mr. Hartsig on his presentation
and said she was glad she heard it. Mr. Heckman said he is prepared to make a
motion. The board finally ended up keeping 2 Conditions.
NUMBER
1 - The color, material,
the roof line of the proposed garage, and the architectural element (s) shall
replicate the main residential structure.
NUMBER
2 - No additional homes or
accessory structures such as a shed or garage shall be constructed on the
balance of this consolidated property. This condition shall not preclude the
addition of recreational accessories in the rear yard.
Mayank said we should say, “No
additional homes or accessory structure shall be allowed in the rear. He said
the reason the board is allowing this is to keep the backyard in a park like
setting. There was discussion on what should or should not be allowed in the
backyard.
Motion
There was a motion by Robert Bender to approved Case 2004-415 for a
sideyard variance,
including 2 Staff Conditions.
There was a 2nd by William Heckman.
Roll Call Cherry Linder-Yes, William
Heckman-Yes, James Klatte-Yes, Robert Bender-yes The motion was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by
Cherry Linder to adjourn._____2nd____by Robert Bender___ Roll
Call William Heckman-
Yes, James Klatte-Yes, Cherry Linder-Yes , Robert
Bender-Yes The motion was approved. |
