BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES

MAY 14, 2007

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Faulkner.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Timmons, Kelly Thornton, Greg Faulkner, Harry McMannis, Dick Mickley, Nevin Taylor (arrived 7:20 p.m.) Excused: Alex Kessler

OTHERS PRESENT: City Planner DeLong, Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk Patterson, Chris Thoma, Gene McBride, Heather & Jeremy Boggs, Carroll Ormeroid, Joe Hunt, Tyler Traucht, David Cook

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting on April 9, 2007 were approved as distributed.

OLD BUSINESS:

1. Requesting a conditional use to permit a veterinary clinic in the A-R zoning district; to be located at 1131 Milford Avenue. Filed by Dr. Julie Vargo, 17380 Waldo Rd., Marysville, Ohio (Tabled at April 9^th mtg.)

Mr. Faulkner stated the Board received a Legal Opinion on this application which states that this case does not need a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Mickley moved to dismiss the OId Business, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:

Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis YES Mr. Mickley YES

Motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS:

2. Requesting a variance to permit 57 sq. ft. freestanding identification sign, 7.5’ in height vs. a maximum size of 12 sq. ft., maximum height of 5’ freestanding identification sign permitted; HMD zoning district. To be located at 660 London Avenue. Filed by Drew Youngberg, UC Signs, P. O. Box 95, Unionville Center, OH 43077, for Union County Board of Commissioners.

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: City Planner DeLong distributed copies of Section 1129.13 of the Code to all Board Members. This section outlines the findings of fact that the Board is required to meet when making their determination.

Ms. McCoy said the applicant states their existing sign is twice the size they have. Their existing sign is different than what is being requested. Their existing sign was for more than two business units in a single building. A freestanding sign was permitted for each business unit, 12 sq. ft. for the first business unit and 8 sq. ft. for each additional business unit up to a maximum of 72 sq. ft. All businesses were identified in that building. They are now requesting a freestanding ID sign, that being the Allen Family Medical Building. That’s why it’s restricted to such a small sign.

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: Mr. Drew Youngberg of UC Signs addressed the Board. The existing sign is quite small but larger than what’s allowed. 12 sq. ft. is permitted for one tenant in the building. The existing sign is 20 sq. ft., and you cannot read it when driving by. He doesn’t feel a 12 sq. ft. sign will work, even with only one tenant. That one tenant needs to have visibility, especially with a new hospital being built at the end of Union County. They need to advertise and promote themselves with the proposed signage. The proposed sign will be in line with the sign at the Morey entrance on London Avenue. It will not only be consistent in design, but consistent in color, size and uniformity.

Mr. Faulkner pointed out this is not the type of business that you drive by and just decide to come into. People will be coming to this location for scheduled appointments. Mr. Youngberg agreed, but also stated people will be driving by and will see that it is a medical building. Any bit of advertising that Memorial Hospital can do to promote itself is going to help the hospital.

Mr. McMannis noted the sign will not be identifying any specific person(s) in the building, so of what purpose is that going to be when driving by.

Mr. Mickley asked how many entrances to the hospital are there on that stretch. Response was one on London Avenue. Mr. Youngberg said the proposed sign would designate this building separate from the hospital.

Mr. Thornton asked if Allen Family Medical Building is a tenant to Memorial Hospital or is it a part of the hospital itself? Mr. Carroll Ormeroid said the hospital recently acquired this property. It was in bankruptcy. There are seven physicians in this building with plans for adding more. The naming of this facility, the Allen Family Medical Building, is in honor of Ann and Dave Allen who have served this community on behalf of the hospital for 30 plus years. This proposed sign will give continuity with signage in and around the hospital. This building is not a part of the hospital’s lot, however, it is part of the hospital. Additional doctors cannot be accommodated in the main hospital, so they will be located in this building. Mr. Ormeroid said an agency was hired to deal with the leasing and management of the day-to-day operation of this medical building.

Mr. Thornton asked if there would be additional signage on the building. Response was yes, perhaps smaller signage in the windows.

Mr. McMannis feels the proposed sign would be taking away from the doctors in the building by going to one sign like that. Mr. Youngberg pointed out that you cannot read the names on the existing sign now unless you are walking on the sidewalk, so doesn’t feel the proposed sign would take anything away. It should make it less confusing.

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: No comments.

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS: Ms. McCoy stated that if the Board or Applicant feels that a 12 sq. ft. sign is not an adequate size to identify any business in those zoning districts, someone should recommend to Planning Commission to change the code, or else everyone will be coming to BZA with the same argument, that it’s hardship, that a 12 sq. ft. sign is not adequate to identify a business.

Mr. DeLong reiterated that Section 1129.13, findings of fact, A thru D, is required when making a determination.

Mr. Thornton feels that since the Board approved the signage package for Memorial Hospital of this dimension previously, and this property has become part of the Memorial Hospital, this would be an appropriate application of Item B, that the same adjacent property already is owned by the same organization, has already received approval for a very similar, if not identical size sign, and that this would be an appropriate item for approval, as this is now part of the hospital as well.

Mrs. Timmons stated it lends continuity.

Mr. Thornton moved to approve the variance as requested, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:

Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis NO Mr. Mickley YES Mrs. Timmons YES

Variance granted.

3. Requesting a variance for a fence to be 9’ from the City right of way on Sorensen Drive as opposed to 25’ minimum front setback required for a fence in the Ashton Meadows Subdivision; R-3 zoning district; filed by Chris Thomas, 261 Springwood Lane, Marysville, Ohio 43040

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNGEE: Ms. McCoy stated the minimum front setback in R-3 Zoning District is 25’. Applicant is requesting 9’ on Sorensen Drive.

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: Mr. Chris Thoma addressed the Board. The correct name on this application should read Thoma, not Thomas. The reason for the fence is for safety of their children and a dog. They plan to build a 4’ shadow box/picket fence. Ms. McCoy confirmed the fence would be 9’ from the City right-of-way, which will be 10’ from the sidewalk. Mr. Thoma said the fence would not tie into the existing fence in the back because he’s leaving an easement for the utility boxes located back there.

Mr. Taylor questioned conflicting heights of the fence on the application. Mr. Thoma said a 4’ fence, but the application says 6’. Mr. Thoma confirmed a 4’ fence, although they would have liked to have had a 6’ fence.

Mr. Faulkner asked how many feet the fence would come off the back corner of the house. Mr. Thoma said between 65-70’ off the back corner of the house. 17’ from the right-of-way. Mr. Faulkner asked if there would be 5-1/4” or 5-1/2” between each picket. Applicant is planning 3-5” spacing between the pickets. Mr. Taylor noted for safety sake, you want to be less than 5”. 3-1/2” spacing is required for safety of the children and the dog.

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: No comments.

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Mickley moved to grant the variance for a 4’ picket fence, 9’ from the right-of-way, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:

Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis YES Mr. Mickley YES Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton YES

Variance granted.

4. Requesting a variance for a fence to be 20’ from the City right of way on Creekview Drive as opposed to 25’ minimum front setback required for a fence in the Woods at Mill Valley Subdivision; R-2 zoning district; filed by Tyler & Loren Traucht, 1801 Chiprock Drive, Marysville, Ohio 43040.

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms. McCoy cited Codified Ordinance 1131.21(3) states a fence shall be located no closer to the street than the front setback line, which is 25’ in the Woods at Mill Valley Subdivision. The applicant is requesting 20’ from the front setback line.

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: Mr. Traucht addressed the Board. The reason for the fence is for the safety of the children, especially since it’s a corner lot.

Mr. Thornton noted that the proposed fence is on top of the easement line. Applicant was not aware of that. Mr. Taylor said that if the City needed to get into that easement to get to utilities, they have the right to tear down the fence without notice. Mr. Thornton said the Board encourages putting in a gate big enough so that a truck or other equipment can get into the back yard.

The fence will be a 4’ high vinyl picket fence.

Mr. Faulkner noted the application says “Certificate of Appropriateness required by Design Review Board.” He asked if he had approached the Design Review Board. Mr. Traucht responded yes and it’s been approved.

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: No comments.

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS: Mrs. Timmons moved to grant the variance, noting that the fence is on the easement and the Board had advised him as such, seconded by Mr. Thornton and the question put, stood:

Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis YES Mr. Mickley YES Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Taylor YES

Variance granted.

5. Requesting a variance for a fence to be 12’ from the City right of way on Grove Street as opposed to fence being permitted to be placed no closer to street than front of the house; R-1 zoning district; located at 907 Collins Avenue; filed by Joe Hunt, 310 S. Court Street, for Heather & Jeremy Boggs.

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms. McCoy stated the front setback on Grove Street is 30’ from the City right of way. That would be 55’ in the right of way. They are 18’ from the City right-of-way. The fence was started with a permit, but there was a misunderstanding in the middle of construction.

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: Mr. Joe Hunt addressed the Board. He noted there is a walk-out basement that runs 18’ long along the back of the house. It comes all the way 2’ past the house. A fence wouldn’t work because it would drop down and the dog or child would be able to crawl underneath the fence. When he bumped over 2’, the fence hit right in the middle of a large oak tree, so applicant moved over another 3’ to get by the oak tree, on the outside of it.

Ms. McCoy corrected a statement she made earlier, that they had to be 30’. They don’t. It’s the front setback or the front of the house, whichever is closer. The side of the house that faces Grove is closer, so applicant needed to be even with the side of the house. This is what the variance is for, for the fence to be out 5’ from the house.

Mr. Thornton asked what the neighbors thought of the fence. Mr. Boggs stated he talked to the neighbors and they are fine with the fence. They think it looks nice. There will be an 8’ gate in the fence in case trucks or equipment need to get through.

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: No comments.

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Mickley moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. McMannis and the question put, stood:

Mr. McMannis YES Mr. Mickley YES Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner YES

Variance granted.

6. Requesting a variance for a lot line adjustment (lot split) for two nonconforming lots resulting in lots being 5,593.25 sq. ft. and 4,966.75 sq. ft. (existing lots 5,280 sq. ft. each) vs. minimum of 9,100 sq. ft. lots required; 119 and 125 S. Oak Street; R-2 zoning district; filed by David E. Cook, 123 W. 5^th Street, for Eugene McBride, 569 Wagon Wheel Lane, Marysville, OH 43040

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms. McCoy stated if one lot would increase by 148.75 sq. ft. and the other lot decrease by that amount, the lot frontage remains the same. The south line would move to the north by 3.5’ toward the back of the lot to allow an existing fence to remain. Both are non-conforming lots now, so she could not approve the request because she can’t approve a lot split or lot line adjustment and make another nonconforming lot.

Mr. Taylor asked Ms. McCoy if she foresees any problems as presented. Ms. McCoy said as City Zoning Inspector, she sees no problems.

Mr. Dave Cook stated that Ms. Forry owns both properties. The larger sketch is the home she resides in now. It was built around 1984 and fence has been up since around that time. The other home is a rental property, which they’re looking to sell. From a real estate viewpoint, it’s an encroachment, and he cannot sell that property until the fence is removed or it’s resurveyed to include the fence. That is what he’s asking the Board to do.

Mr. Faulkner asked why not remove the fence? Mr. Cook said she has a walkway and a garden on her side of the fence. It’ been this way probably 20-30 years.

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: No comments.

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton moved to grant the request for variance for a lot line adjustment as requested, seconded by Mr. Mickley and the question put, stood:

Mr. Mickley YES Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis YES

Variance granted.

Mr. Taylor said normally he would take a much firmer stance on fences in staying with the request unless it’s a corner lot, which means special circumstances, and he will follow what the recommendations of City Planner/Zoning Inspector . Mr. Delong said recommendations will be put in letter form for future meetings. Mr. Taylor said the Board would like to have that information.

Mr. Thornton requested scaled drawings in the future to assist the Board in reviewing the requests, even if it means the applicant brings a detailed, accurate drawing to the meeting. That type of information presented at the meeting can be accepted, however, other types of information are expected to be included in the packet.

Instead of accepting the detailed drawing at the meeting, Mr. Mickley suggested tabling the request if the applicant does not comply with the Zoning Inspector’s request for a detailed plat at the time of application.

ADJOURMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.