BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
JULY 10, 2006
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Mickley at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alex Kessler, Barbara Timmons,
Richard Mickley, Kelly Thornton, Greg Faulkner Excused:
Nevin Taylor, Harry McMannis
OTHERS
PRESENT: Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk
Patterson, Lucetta and Norman Fry, David Skriletz, Jim Westfall, Barry and
Susan Cordell
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: Mr. Thornton moved to
approve the minutes with a correction to the minutes on Page 3, 2nd
paragraph, 3rd line. “interior” should read “exterior”. The minutes were approved as amended.
AGENDA
ITEMS:
OLD
BUSINESS:
NEW
BUSINESS:
1.
Requesting a variance for a fence to have 5’ front setback on
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy stated according to the final plat for Mill Valley Subdivision Phase 1,
there is a 15’ front setback requirement for
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Robert Foerster
addressed the Board. He is requesting a
fence to fence in three dogs and is requesting a 5’ setback. There is a pine tree in the back corner of
the lot that with the 15’ setback, they would not be able to fence in the tree;
a 5’ setback would allow this. Would also allow for playground equipment in the future.
Mrs.
Timmons asked the height of the proposed fence.
Mr. Foerster said 6’. Mr.
Thornton asked if there were other 6’ fences in the area. Ms. McCoy stated half of them are 6’ high and
half are 4’. Fence would be a dog-ear
picket fence with 2” space between each picket.
Fence will be made of treated wood and he may stain it.
The
Board cautioned applicant of easement concerns if he places the fence in the
easement. One option is to put the fence
right behind his shed to avoid the easement.
Neighbors
have no problems with the fence. Fence
will run along side of the neighbor’s fence.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: None
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS:
Mrs.
Timmons moved to approve the variance, seconded by Mr. Mickley and the question
put, stood:
Mr.
Kessler YES Mrs. Timmons
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Faulkner
YES
Variance
granted.
2.
Requesting 1’ side setback and 8’ side setback for construction of a
deck as opposed to minimum of 7.5’ with a sum of 17.5’ side setbacks required;
R-2 zoning district; filed by David Skriletz,
3.
Requesting a variance for a fence to be 8’ in height as opposed to
maximum of 6’ fence required; R-2 zoning district, filed by David Skriletz,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy cited Codified Ordinance 1137.13(i), the minimum side setback for the R-2
zoning district is 7.5’ for a sum of 17.5’.
Also the maximum height for a fence according to Codified Ordinance
1139.21(a) is 6’. The applicant is
requesting 8’.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. David Skriletz
addressed the Board. He noted the lots
in this particular section are very narrow.
His lot is maybe 30’ wide and that’s including the width of his
driveway.
Mr.
Thornton noted from the aerial map that the property line is different than
what’s on record between 224 and 226.
Mr. Skriletz said he owned the large building behind his property. Ms. McCoy stated she noticed the same thing
and asked the applicant about it. She
suggested he go to the Recorder’s Office to get it corrected. He is paying taxes on both parcels. Applicant wants the fence for privacy. The deck next door is 3-1/2’ feet in the air,
so in order to give Mr. Skriletz privacy on his side of the fence, they need
more than 6’. The property slopes down
toward the east. The fence will go half
way past the north end of the barn. Mr.
Skriletz said the neighbor’s chain link fence is about a foot on his property
on the west end and right about on the property line on the east end. The fence will be run as close to the chain
link fence as practical. Board expressed
concern for maintenance between the two fences.
Applicant will treat grass with herbicides then put gravel down. Fence will be treated wood. Neighbors have no problems with the proposed
fence.
Mr.
Faulkner asked if the fence would be a 6’ fence with lattice work on top to
make it 8’ or would it be an 8’ fence.
Response was a straight 8’ stockade privacy fence.
The
deck will be the same width as the house.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: None
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton moved to
grant the request for a 1’ side setback and 8’ side setback for construction of
a deck, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:
Mrs.
Timmons YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Faulkner
YES Mr. Kessler YES
Variance
granted.
Mr.
Thornton asked if the fence would be 8’ in height all the way around. Applicant would like to build the fence
higher at the deck for privacy. The
fence will be 8’ from ground level.
Mr.
Mickley moved to grant the variance for a fence to be 8’ all the way around,
seconded by Mr. Thornton and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Mickley YES Mr. Thornton
YES Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. Kessler YES
Mrs. Timmons YES
Variance
granted.
4.
Requesting a variance to permit lot split of twin singles with 36’ lot
width for one unit and 35’ lot width of the other unit as opposed to minimum of
40’ lot width required; located at
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms. McCoy cited Codified Ordinance
1137.15(n), the minimum lot width in the R-4 zoning district for splitting a
twin unit building is 40’ for each side.
The applicant is requesting 35’ and 36’ as the lot is only 71’ in
width. Mr. Thornton asked how many of
these units are in that subdivision? Ms. McCoy stated it depends on whether
individuals buy it to rent out or to sell.
There could 20 more. Most people
buy to rent both sides. The owners of
this property have put considerable money in both units and would now like to
sell them. Ms. McCoy stated when this
development was platted, it met the lot width
requirements. Zoning has been changed
since then. It used to be 35’. Mrs. Timmons feels this should have been
grandfathered in.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. & Mrs. Cordell
addressed the Board. They own both units
and want to split the units in order to make them more marketable. They have put considerable money in the units
and no longer wish to rent them. One
tenant is interested in purchasing their unit.
Board asked how maintenance costs would be shared, such as the roof,
siding, etc. Mr. Cordell stated there
will be a legal agreement drawn up for that purpose. Neighbors have no problem with the Cordell’s
plan to sell.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: None
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mrs. Timmons moved to
grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Thornton and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Thornton YES Mr. Faulkner
YES Mr. Kessler YES
Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Mickley
YES
Variance
granted.
5.
Requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a
nonconforming use in a structure to be changed to another nonconforming use for
the purpose of conducting a skin care, cosmetics and massage business; R-2
zoning district, to be located at
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy stated this building has been used for several different businesses over
the years. According to Codified
Ordinance 1127.08(a)(3), if no structural alterations
are made, any nonconforming use of a structure or structure and land may, upon
appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, be changed to another nonconforming use
provided that the BZA finds that the proposed use is equally appropriate or
more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use.
Mr.
Mickley read a letter from Tina Hill, Director of Pregnancy Care Center of
Union County, who is in favor of this business.
“I am writing to encourage you to consider a zoning request from Lucetta
Fry that you will discuss in your July 10th meeting. Lucetta’s request
involves the leasing of the other end of our building for her office
space. It is very important to us that
we have a tenant in our building that is seeking to improve the quality of life
for
As
a non profit organization our goal is to help the young women who come to us
become more responsible members of this community by aiding them in pre-natal
and parenting skills. The rental income
that we receive from our tenant is extremely important to us to maintain our
building and administrative overhead.
This also enables us to target the funds donated to our organization
into programs for our clients.
Your
decision to grant Mrs. Fry’s request will be most appreciated by
Sincerely,
Tina
R. Hill
Director”
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mrs. Lucetta Fry addressed
the Board. She is a licensed Estotician with the State Board of Cosmetology for
professional skin care. She also
provides waxing services, massages, as well as facials. She will also sell skin care products and
cosmetics. She is currently at Reed’s
Rays and Relaxation as an independent.
The room she occupies is very small, and she needs to move beyond
that. The proposed building is a
suitable location for her business and also would help the
Mr.
Thornton asked about the hours for her business. Hours would be daytime hours and some
Saturday hours. The environment of the
place is very tranquil.
Mr.
Mickley asked about proposed exterior signage for the business. Ms. Fry had no specific plans for
signage. Signage would comply to code. Ms. McCoy
stated the code states a sign 4 sq. ft. would be permitted.
Mr.
Mickley asked what kind of services would be provided. Ms. Fry stated a full body massage done by a
licensed massage therapist. The same
type of massage as
provided by a chiropractic office or a salon, such as Reed’s Rays & Relaxation. Mrs. Fry assured the Board this is not a
massage parlor. Her business is on the
up and up.
Mr.
Thornton asked if this portion of the building had been rented out before. Response was yes. Mr. Phillip Connolly had his office there
years ago. The Veteran’s office used
that facility, as well as the Union County Farm Bureau. The office space available for her business
is 350 sq. ft.
As
far as hours, daytime hours may be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Mrs.
Timmons expressed concern that this area is primarily residential. The business would not get off-the-street
traffic because it’s not a highly traveled street. Ms. Fry said she advertises in the Hometown
Connection, as well as other means of advertising; the same as she advertises
her services at Reed’s. Her business is
by appointment only.
Mr.
Mickley said he had a problem where the code says we can do this if it’s as appropriate or more appropriate than the present use. The businesses that have been in there before
are non-profit businesses providing service to the county as opposed to being a
commercial business. How appropriate is
a commercial use in that building as a nonconforming use opposed to a service
that is being provided. Ms. Fry stated
she would be set up as a commercial business; she is a for profit
business. She noted there are several
hair salons that are set up in houses and within residential areas, such as on
Mr.
Thornton noted Chaffin & Sons park their vehicles in the Pregnancy Center
Parking Lot. Mrs. Fry stated that Tina
Hill told her that she allows them to park their vehicles in the lot.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: Mr. Jim Westfall addressed
the Board. He lives at
Massage
parlor was mentioned, but didn’t guess that’s what’s being talked about. It conjures up all sorts of things that he
doesn’t want in his neighborhood. He has
a great deal of respect for the
Mr.
Thornton asked about stipulating certain hours for her business. Mr. Westfall stated he couldn’t speak for all
the neighbors, but in general, they oppose the whole concept of traffic and
massage parlors. There are better uses
for that building.
Mrs.Timmons
stated she received several phone calls today from adjacent neighbors. Mr. Mickley received one phone call.
Mr.
Mickley asked the applicant if the Board were to grant this, could they
stipulate hours for her business. Mrs.
Fry said that was fine. She plans on
only working part-time.
Mrs.
Fry stated she takes exception to this whole massage parlor thing. This is an up and up business. She and her massage therapist are licensed by
the State of
Mr.
Mickley asked what kind of hours would be acceptable to Mrs. Fry. She responded at Reed’s she works Tuesday and
Thursday night, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Wednesday, day time hours and Saturday,
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Since this would
be her own business, she would have to put a little more work into it in order
to pay the rent, advertising and anything else that will come with owning her
own business. Between her and the
massage therapist, it may end up being a 40-hour week.
Mr.
Thornton asked her if she would still follow the Tuesday and Thursday night schedule? Mrs. Fry
said she is pretty flexible, but she does need to work around her family’s
schedule. Also, with the type of
business she has, a lot of people who have the money to spend are working also,
so it’s helpful to have a few hours in the evenings to accommodate the working
people.
Mr.
Westfall stated he objects to any evening hours and feels everyone on his
petition would too. That’s probably the
strongest objection.
Mr.
Thornton said obviously this is a starting point and asked if this would be
something that, should you get to the point where you would build up your
clientele and do this full time, would applicant consider moving to another
location. Mrs. Fry stated yes.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS:
Mr.
Mickley asked the Board if they wished to do anything with hours. Mr. Thornton stated “we have good
intentions. I don’t know that we have the
right location. I don’t know that doing
anything with hours is going to be acceptable across the board. It’s a good thought. I believe that if you had the opportunity to
work daytime hours, I think it might be worth pursing a little bit more.” His preference is again, it’s a neighborhood
residence, the businesses that happened to be there previously had all daytime
hours. His feeling is that this business
doesn’t really fit well.
Mr.
Thornton moved to grant the request for an appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals to allow a nonconforming use in a structure be changed to another
nonconforming use for the purpose of conducting a skin care, cosmetics and
massage business, not a parlor, seconded by Mr. Mickley and the question put,
stood:
Mr.
Mickley stated most of what has been discussed goes with the part in the
nonconforming use about equally appropriate or more appropriate to the existing
use.
Mr.
Thornton stated the biggest challenge is really in that area of time. It’s not a right location for the type of
business. Hours are at the wrong time of
day.
Mrs.
Timmons stated there are a lot of empty places in town that Mrs. Fry could deal
for. Mr. Fry stated they checked a few
and the rent is $1,000 or more per month.
Mr.
Faulkner NO Mr. Kessler
NO Mrs. Timmons NO Mr.
Mickley NO Mr. Thornton
NO
Appeal
denied.
6.
Review Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure
#1. Mr. Mickley suggested adding
“and agenda items”
after date.
#1. The BZA will meet for an Appeal,
Variance or Conditional Use on the second Monday of each month at 7:00
p.m. The date and agenda items will be
advertised in the local paper ten days before the meeting.
#6. Change four (4) to five
(5). Should read as follows:
#6. Unless conflicts of interest are
recognized, each member shall be required to vote upon all questions before the
Board. A motion must have five (5)
affirmative votes in order to pass, therefore if less than five (5) members are
present, the Board will meet, but no action will be taken and another meeting
will be scheduled.
#13. Add: regularly scheduled
Shall read as follows:
#13. Any member of the Board who is
absent, unexcused, for three (3) consecutive regularly scheduled meetings shall
have their position on the Board declared vacant and the President of Council
will appoint a replacement.
#14. Delete entirely.
Mr.
Mickley noted that absences shall require advance notice and should be entered
into the minutes. Absences where
advanced notification is not received and are later deemed excused, shall be
entered into the following regularly scheduled meeting minutes.
Due
to the Charter change increasing the number of BZA members to seven, from five,
terms need to be set for the two new members.
In Mr. Taylor’s absence, Mr. Thornton drew. He drew a 3-year term for Mr. Taylor and Mr.
Kessler drew a 5-year term. Mr. Taylor’s
term will expire December 31, 2008 and Mr. Kessler’s term will expire December
31, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.