BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
JANUARY 9, 2006
The meeting was called to
order by Chairman Thornton at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Kessler, Nevin Taylor, Greg Faulkner, Kelly Thornton, Dick Mickley, Harry McMannis, Barbara
Timmons
OTHERS PRESENT: Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk Patterson,
David Burke, Mike Williamson, Christine Ralston
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There being no additions or corrections,
the minutes for the meeting on December 12, 2005 were
approved as distributed.
AGENDA
ITEMS:
REORGANIZATION:
1.
Elect
Chairman
Mrs. Timmons nominated Dick
Mickley.
Nominations closed.
Affirmative voice vote was unanimous. Mr. Mickley
was elected Chairman.
2.
Elect Vice
Chairman
Mr. Mickley nominated Kelly Thornton. Nominations closed. Affirmative voice vote was
unanimous. Mr. Thornton was elected
Vice Chairman.
Mr. Mickley suggested handling New Business before Old Business
in order to take care of public matters first. Mr. McMannis
moved to change the agenda as proposed, seconded by Mrs. Timmons; affirmative
voice vote was unanimous.
q
Requesting a variance for a
driveway to be located 0’ from the side property line. Planning and Zoning Code 1109.16
requires driveway to be installed at least 3’ from the side property line; to be
located at
COMMENTS OF ZONING
INSPECTOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER:
Codified Ordinance 1109.16 states: “…driveways shall be not less than
three feet from the side lot line…”
The applicant is requesting the drive be installed at the property line
due to the fact they would like to move the existing driveway from the north
side of the property to the south side.
If this is done, it would eliminate an easement that exists on Dave’s
Pharmacy’s property. Although this
section is in the Planning section of the code, all of Chapter 1100 is the
“Planning and Zoning Code.” The
limitations of setbacks apply to zoning even though it is part of the
Subdivision code.
COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: Mr. David Burke, owner of Dave’s
Pharmacy, addressed the Board. Ms.
Patsy Charters is the neighbor to the south of Mr. Burke’s property. Mr. Burke purchased his property in
1996. There is an easement to the south side of his property that allows Ms.
Charters to access a garage in the back of her property. She currently has no driveway or other
ingress/egress except for accessing Mr. Burke’s property, which is currently in
the deed. The drive thru for Mr.
Burke’s business impedes the ability for Ms. Charters to access her garage. Mr. Burke’s attorney, Jeff Merklin, feels Ms. Charters’ easement rights are not
impeded. The easement in the deed
is a generically-written easement.
In order to bring resolution to this problem, Mr. Burke has offered to
build her a driveway and garage on the south side of Ms. Charters’ property in
exchange for her foregoing the easement right and having it removed off the
deed. Ms. Charters accepted Mr.
Burke’s offer.
Mr. Mike Williamson,
Cornerstone Engineering, is Mr. Burke’s engineer for the project. He showed the proposed drawing of the
plans. Mr. Williamson has met with
the City Engineer because the driveway will be built on top of an existing
sanitary sewer line. City Engineer
had no problems with proposed driveway.
There will be two decorative bollards built to protect the gas meter,
since it’ll be right up against the driveway. The driveway will be 8-1/2’ and will
have a 12’ turnaround. Plans are to extend Mr. Burke’s retaining
wall to connect to the existing retaining wall. Some of the existing retaining wall will
be demolished along with the approach to Ms. Charters’ garage, as well as the
existing garage.
Mr. McMannis questioned the amount of green space between the
driveways. Mr. Williamson responded
that the property was surveyed, and there is 3-1/2 or 4’ between the
drives. The north side of the drive
is right against the house.
Mrs. Timmons questioned an
easement underneath the proposed driveway.
Mr. Williamson noted an easement already exists there.
Mr. Thornton asked why not
build the drive on the right side of the lot instead of the left? Mr. Williamson stated the retaining wall
has to come almost the whole way to handle drainage. Also the utility pole would have to be
moved. From a cost perspective,
this is not an option.
Mrs. Timmons thought there
used to be a driveway on that side of the house.
Ms. Christine Ralston
confirmed that a driveway used to be located there. Ms. Ralston used to own the Decker house
and was a neighbor to Ms. Charters.
There is room for the driveway.
She supports Mr. Burke’s proposal to put a driveway and garage on the
south side of the house. It would
be good for Ms. Charters’ property.
Mr. Taylor asked the
timeframe for this project to occur.
Mr. Burke noted it would be about 60 days out from the start date. It is much more cost effective to wait
until warmer weather to work with the concrete for the driveway.
COMMENTS OF CITIZENS:
DISCUSSION BY BZA
MEMBERS: Mrs. Timmons moved to
grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Thornton and the question put,
stood:
Mr. Kessler YES Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mrs. Timmons YES
Variance
granted.
OLD
BUSINESS:
q
Review Board of Zoning
Appeals Rules of Procedure
Rule #1. Ms. McCoy suggested adding the word
“Appeals” to Rule #1. Should read
“The BZA will meet for an Appeal, Variance or Conditional
Use…..”
Rule #2. Due to the change in the number of board
members, change five (5) to seven (7).
Mr. Mickley questioned the number of terms. Mr. Taylor stated the new members were
appointed in the same fashion as the existing board members, for five-year
terms. This issue will be addressed
when discussing the Code.
Rule #4. Ms. McCoy suggested deleting the words
“City Planner” and adding the words “City Engineer.” Mr. Mickley suggested the words “City Representative” because
the Board may request other city officials, such as the Law Director, and not
always the City Engineer. Mr.
Taylor recommended using the term “Designee” instead of “City Representative” in
order to be consistent with the language in Section 1129.05. Board agreed.
Rule #6. Will address after
recommended change goes through City Council.
Rule #7. Due to the change in the number of members,
“4/5” vote should be changed to “majority” vote.
Mrs. Timmons asked the
Zoning Inspector if she would consider including directions to some of the
properties on the agenda. With all
the new streets, sometimes it’s hard to find the properties. Ms. McCoy will include a map with the
packets.
Rule
#11. Delete “sent to the Planning Commission”
and replace with “available at http://www.marysvilleohio.org/.”
Rule
#13. Add the word “(unexcused)” after the
word “absent.”
Rule
#14. Ms. McCoy suggested dropping this rule
because it’s very hard for her, administratively, to have to only accept four
applications. When applicants call,
she informs them of the deadline for the application in order to be on the next
month’s agenda. It’s not fair to
tell those people when the come in with the application, if she should happen to
have already received four applications, that the individual’s application can
not be heard until the next month’s meeting, when she told him if he met the
deadline, he’d be on the next agenda.
It was decided to keep the rule as is for a guideline, but the Zoning
Inspector would call the Chairman when she receives more than four applications.
Mr. Thornton moved to
approve the changes as recommended, seconded by Mr. Faulkner, and the question
put, stood:
Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Kessler YES
Motion
passed.
q
Review of Planning and
Zoning Code Sections relating to Board of Zoning Appeals
Mr. Mickley referred to “Revised Recommendations” dated
12/16/05. He noted Sections 1129.24
and 1129.25 do not include a timeframe for a public hearing. However, 1129.24 includes a reference to
the “procedures specified in Sections 1129.15 through 1129.17” so it’s taken
care of.
Recommended changes to the
sections have a line through for deletion or in bold text for
additions/replacements.
1129.05 – Change “five” members to “seven”
members
Add “or Designee” after “The City Zoning Inspector”
The length of terms may
need to be adjusted. Concern is
that three members’ terms expire in the same year. Mr. Taylor asked about setting the terms
similar to Council; making three members’ terms on one rotation of two years,
then 4 members on rotation the other two years. Board recommends that one of the new
terms be for three years and then five years. The other term to be
for five years and then five years.
Those changes would allow continuity for the board, in that no more than
two terms expire in any year.
Section 1129.07 Board
feels it needs more than a simple majority. They feel it needs to be a super
majority, five (5). Five (5) will
be recommended.
Section 1129.18 and
Section 1129.25: Add “conclusion
of” after “Within thirty-five days after the”. The Board was having problems with
applications being tabled and not settled.
With this proposed language, the Board does not get backed into a corner
because of the “no action taken, the matter is approved”
rule.
Mr. Mickley referred to language in Section 1136.06 (d) dealing
with Architectural Review Board:
(d)
The Board [Architectural
Review Board] shall meet and hold a public hearing not less than five days or
more than thirty days after filing to determine the appropriateness of a
specific environmental change. If the Board takes no action within thirty
days from the filing with the Zoning Inspector, the Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be issued as a matter of law. [emphasis added] This thirty day time period may be
extended by the mutual agreement of the Board and the
applicant.
Mr. Thornton moved to
continue forward with the written recommendations and forward to Planning
Commission for their review.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.