BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 2006
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Mickley at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Richard Mickley, Alex Kessler,
Nevin Taylor, Harry McMannis, Barbara Timmons, Kelly Thornton, Greg Faulkner
OTHERS
PRESENT: Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk
Patterson, Rita Flory, Tim Long, Theresa O’Brien
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: There being no additions or
corrections, the minutes for the meeting on July 10, 2006
were approved as distributed.
NEW
BUSINESS:
1.
Requesting a variance for addition of existing garage to have 3.5’ side
setback as opposed to minimum of 5’ side setback required, R-2 zoning district;
filed by Rita R. Flory,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy cited Codified Ordinance 1137.13(j) requires a minimum of 5’ side setback
for an accessory building. The applicant
is requesting 3.5’ side setback to build an addition on to an older existing
garage.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Ms. Rita Flory addressed
the Board. She wants to expand her
garage to accommodate her car. The
existing garage gives her only 3” between her car and her garage door when
closed and even then her front bumper is against the wall of the garage. She has already gotten permission to expand
the 8’ door to a 9’ garage door. She is
asking to add an additional 4’ to the building to use as storage for her lawn
equipment. This addition would extend into the yard. She plans to put a second garage door on the
new addition so that she can enter from the alley. She said she would put in a gravel driveway
for that entrance. The Board cautioned
her about a gravel driveway. It must be
either paved or washed gravel. Applicant
said she would use washed gravel with plans to pave it in the future. Ms. McCoy confirmed that lot coverage is 21%,
so applicant is within the 25% permitted.
Ms. Flory plans to side the garage with white siding to match the
existing garage.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Taylor moved to
grant the variance, seconded by Mr. McMannis and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Mickley YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mr. Faulkner YES
Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Kessler
YES Mrs. Timmons YES
Mr. Thornton YES
Variance
granted.
2.
Requesting 18’ front setback to replace existing front porch vs. minimum
front setback 35’ required; R-2 zoning district; filed by O’Brien Homes, Inc.,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy cited Codified Ordinance 1137.13(i) requires minimum front setback of
30’. Applicant is requesting 18’ in
order to replace a porch that is 5 foot by 5 foot and is in state of disrepair. Ms. McCoy noted a discrepancy in the figure
for the front setback as shown on the agenda and her memorandum. The correct number is 30’. Ms. McCoy stated a neighbor came to her office
today to question where the setback is figured from. Setback is figured 1’ inside the
sidewalk. He had no problem with the
applicant’s request for the front porch.
He thought it was a good idea.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Ms. Theresa O’Brien of
O’Brien Homes addressed the Board. They
are the contractor for Lisa Little, homeowner. Ms. Little currently
has about a 5’ stoop on the front of her house.
Request is for an 8’ deep and 28’ wide covered porch. Will have cedar rails and
handrails. Mr. Thornton asked if
measurement was the interior porch or the overhang of the roofing. Response was not the overhang. 1’ overhang needs to be added.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Taylor moved to
grant the variance because it will add value to the community, seconded by Mrs.
Timmons and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Thornton noted the typo, 30’ vs. 35’.
Request should read 18’ front setback from the 30’ setback required.
Mr.
McMannis YES Mr. Faulkner
YES Mr. Taylor YES
Mr. Kessler YES Mrs. Timmons
YES Mr. Thornton YES
Mr. Mickley YES
Variance
granted.
3.
Requesting a variance for fence to have 1’ front setback on
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy cited Codified Ordinance 1139.21(a)(3) requires a functional fence be
located no closer to the street than the front setback line, which is 25’ in
the Mill Valley Subdivision, not 30’ because it’s a platted subdivision.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. & Mrs. Tim Long
addressed the Board. They are requesting
a fence for their dogs and future children.
Plans are for a wooden picket fence, 3-1/2’ high, to be painted
white. Mr. Faulkner expressed concern
for the trees in the tree lawn blocking the visibility at the corner. The limbs are currently 2-1/2-3’ off the
ground. Visibility will be compromised
once the fence is up. Applicant was
unsure if the trees belong to them or the City.
Ms. McCoy stated the trees are the owner’s responsibility, and the
ordinance requires trees to be trimmed and out of the way of the sidewalk. Owner will prune the trees in accordance with
the City ordinance. Mr. Mickley cautioned
the applicant about putting a fence in the easement. Applicant will put a gate in the fence.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton noted the
“Description of the Variance says 1’ from sidewalk and 0’ front setback and the
agenda item is written as only a 1’ front setback. He asked for clarification that it’s a 1’
front setback. Ms. McCoy stated it’s a
1’ front setback and from sidewalk a 0’ setback. 0’ front setback means 1’ from the
sidewalk.
Mr.
Thornton moved to grant the variance for a fence to have a 0’ front setback on
Mr.
Faulkner YES Mr. Taylor
YES Mr. Kessler YES
Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Mr. McMannis YES
Variance
granted.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.