BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Mickley at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alex Kessler, Kelly Thornton,
Barbara Timmons, Richard Mickley, Harry McMannis, Greg Faulkner, Nevin Taylor
OTHERS
PRESENT: Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk
Patterson, Jim and Carol Lockwood, Judy and Harold Harrington, Barbara and Ron
Miller, Rob Zeisler, Bruce Somerfel, David Dilley, Steve Streng, David Hodge
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: There being no additions or
corrections, the minutes for the meeting on October 9, 2006
were approved as distributed.
OLD
BUSINESS:
Requesting a variance for a lot split resulting in
the two lots being 8,196.62 sq. ft. and 9,901.23 sq. ft. vs. minimum of 11,200
sq. ft. lots required; R-1 zoning district; filed by Barbara Miller for Bill M.
Limes,
Ms. Miller and Mr. Streng
addressed the Board. Mr. Streng
presented the survey which was requested at the October meeting. The lot measures .010 acres. Dimensions are as follows: 45.22’, 35.83’ and 25.45’. Mr. Streng stated the variance they are
requesting does not bring the property line any closer to the house than it
does at the front corner of the homes.
Mr. Taylor moved to pass
the variance as requested by the two property owners in question.
Mr. Mickley asked what
square footage would remain in the properties?
Mr. Thornton recommended
amending the square footage to acreage with those dimensions and moved to amend
the approval for request for variance, striking the words related to the square
feet and inserting the words related to 0.010 acres with the lengths described
in the plat survey provided, L1 being 45.22’, L2 being 35.83’ and L3 being
25.45’. Mr. Taylor had no problem with
the proposed amendment. Mrs. Timmons
noted the actual size of the lot is needed.
Mr. Thornton stated the square footage is needed because it’s a lot
split and you need to deal with minimum square footage. Mr. Thornton withdrew his motion. Ms. McCoy
proposed stating the amendment as follows:
0.010 acres on the northwest property line of Lot 1574 to be transferred
to
Mr. Taylor YES
Mr. Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Mrs. Timmons YES Mr. Thornton
YES Mr. Kessler YES
Variance granted.
NEW
BUSINESS:
2.
Requesting a variance to permit 39.5% lot coverage to construct
screened-in back porch vs. maximum of 35% lot coverage permitted in the R-5
zoning district. Filed by Harold and
Judy Harrington,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy stated applicant is requesting 39.5% lot coverage. Maximum lot coverage permitted is 35%.
It
was thought that the builder was in earlier and got a variance for that
property.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. & Mrs. Harrington
addressed the Board. They’re requesting
a variance so they can screen in their back porch. There is an existing block foundation, cement
slab and roof. Enclosing the back porch
will protect them from the golf balls.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS:
Mr.
Taylor moved to grant the request for variance to permit 39.5% lot coverage to
assure the safety of the residents, seconded by Mr. McMannis and the question
put, stood:
Mr.
Faulkner YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Mrs. Timmons YES
Mr.
Thornton YES Mr. Kessler
YES Mr. Taylor YES
Variance
granted.
Board
of Zoning Appeals Minutes
November
13, 2006
Page
3
3.
Requesting a variance to permit 0’ side setback for a metal carport vs.
5’ side setback required in the R-5 zoning district. Filed by James L. Lockwood,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy stated 5’ side setback is required in R-5 zoning district.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Jim Lockwood addressed
the Board. He would like to put up a
carport for his vehicles. His driveway
is right on the property line, with about 6” off the driveway. It will be
constructed in a way that he can install walls later on. He will put up a wall on the north side. Dimensions are 20’ wide x 22’ long with 6’
walls. He talked to the neighbors and
none had any objections.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Mickley moved to
grant the variance, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:
Mr.
McMannis YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mrs. Timmons YES
Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Kessler YES
Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Faulkner
YES
Variance
granted.
4.
Requesting 38 sq. ft., 8’ in height subdivision identification sign as
opposed to maximum of 20 sq. ft., 5’ in height subdivision identification sign
permitted in the R-5 zoning district. To
be located at the
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: The
maximum size for a subdivision identification sign is 20 sq. ft. and the
maximum height is 5’. The applicant is
requesting 38 sq. ft. with a height of 8’.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. David Hodge, Smith
& Hale,
Proposed
sign will be in the same location as existing sign.
Mr.
Thornton recalled that a variance had been granted on the sign along Rt.
33. Ms. McCoy confirmed it.
Mr.
Taylor expressed concern that the proposed sign would be blocking more oncoming
visibility down the road. Mr. Hodge said
the sign wouldn’t be visible because of all the blockage of the buildings and
apartments. He didn’t feel the
difference between 5’ and 8’ is that much of an increase in height. The additional height accommodates the
increased square footage. He understands
that too much signage can become an eyesore, but at this location out on
Mrs.
Timmons feels with the speed limit being 35 mph in that area, people should not
have a problem reading the current sign.
Mr.
Hodge said this upgraded sign would lend the appearance to perspective tenants
that it’s a first class apartment complex with amenities.
Mr.
Thornton suggested replacing the existing sign with one the same size but of
the new design? Mr. Hodge said that
would be an option.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS:
Mr.
Thornton moved to approve the request as written, seconded by Mr. Mickley and
the question put, stood:
Mr.
Thornton didn’t feel that the request should be approved. He feels the sign is adequate as it is in
size and if the company wants to have a new look, they can have a new look, but
there are specifications already in place for the size.
Mr.
Mickley commented that the signs were there when he purchased the apartment
complex. The special conditions he
raises are ones of his own problem.
Mrs.
Timmons noted the existing sign seems to be in pretty good shape.
Mr.
Hodge stated any time you’re dealing with a variance and you’re dealing with
existing conditions, these rules that are put in place for variances are – what
it boils down to is it’s the judge’s way of saying is this going to have a
detrimental impact in the community or is this going to have a detrimental
impact to adjacent property owners, and when you are talking about 18 sq. ft.
and 3 feet in height, he doesn’t feel that either one of those things is going
to serve to have a negative impact on the citizens of Marysville or on any of
the adjacent property owners.
Mr.
Thornton stated hardship has not been demonstrated. Mr. Mickley agreed.
Mr.
Mickley NO Mrs. Timmons
NO Mr. Thornton NO Mr. Kessler
NO
Mr.
Taylor NO Mr. Faulkner NO
Mr. McMannis NO
Variance
denied.
5.
Requesting 100 sq. ft. shopping center sign vs. 40 sq. ft. shopping
center sign permitted to be located at the SR31 entrance to the
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy stated applicant is permitted to have 40 sq. ft. based on being allowed
to have 20 sq. ft. for each 10,000 sq. ft. of building. They have 18,700 sq. ft, so she rounded it to
40 sq. ft. Permitted height is 25’. She noted the application says 14’, but the
site plan shows 20’. She noted however,
that the height is permitted. Applicant
said 20 sq. ft is the correct number.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Bruce Somerfel
addressed the Board on behalf of James B. Casto Associates. They are requesting a code variance for code
Section 1143.14 to allow for a 99 sq. ft sign over the allowable 40 sq. ft.
sign. The center has no code site
visibility as it stands right now due to increased setback and the obstruction
due to the out parcel development. The
sign design serves two purposes and it’s (inaudible) to two components. The allowable 40 sq. ft. has been utilized
mainly for the four tenant identification and visibility on the road. The remaining 59 sq. ft. is to be broken up
and utilized for the center identification and some decoration. The center name and recognition becomes
important as it is this that serves the affiliation and direction for the
entire remaining eight subsequent tenants that will not be identified on the
sign. The entire structure stands 20’
tall, 5’ less than the allowable height.
The design is complimentary between the retail center,
the structure, the architecture and becomes a nice accessory piece. With the existing conforming use, the
McDonald’s prevents visibility from the south.
As you are traveling north on Rt. 31, the traffic light at
Within
the B-1 and TOC zoning, which share standards, existing variances have been
granted, namely for the Shoppes at Marysville that utilizes 120 sq. ft. sign at
28’ in overall height for a multi-tenant pylon.
The
passage of this variance will help with the direction of the motoring public,
reduce safety issues and help the governmental services. There are no special circumstances that may
result from this request. There will be
no detrimental affect from allowing this variance; quite the opposite. He noted there is neither application nor
discussion about a second sign, which is permitted on the frontage on
Ms.
McCoy noted that when the parcel in front builds, they will not be permitted to
have a freestanding sign.
Mr.
Somerfel noted the sign at Woodside Veterinary Clinic measures 15’ tall and
approximately 60 sq. ft. in size for a single user.
The
sign will be internally illuminated. The
only areas of light will be the actual lettering; the background will be
totally opaque. Tenant panels will be
internal florescent. There will be no
light spill.
Mrs.
Timmons asked if each tenant would have their name on the building. Response was yes.
Ms.
McCoy noted that if this was for a single use, it could have 72 sq. ft. She stated if they want to identify their
businesses, why wouldn’t they reduce the bottom and make it more of a monument
sign and reduce the size of each panel.
That would allow identification of as many of those 12 businesses as
possible. Mr. Somerfel stated that’s an
adage in the sign industry. The City of
Mr.
Taylor feels we’re throwing too much signage out square footage wise. Feels they are getting a break already by
allowing 40 sq. ft. How you use that 40
sq. ft is up to you. He understands you
don’t want to have more than four tenants on the sign and understands Mr.
Somerfel’s concern about the end and center ones, but they are the ones making
choices to go into business where they wanted.
The people that bought the property made the decision to put the
buildings on there. He doesn’t see where
that argument holds any validity. He
commented that as a sign individual, you can be as creative as you want on the
sign; you just have to get the people to sign off on it. Speaking for two of the neighbors in
Mr.
Taylor moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question
put, stood:
Mr.
Thornton asked Mr. Somerfel how important is the identification of “
Mrs.
Timmons stated the people who are going to go shopping for little things, are
probably going to be the people in the
Mr.
Thornton has noticed at the Shoppes at Marysville, that you turn right to go
past the YMCA and drive beside the Shoppes at Marysville. People turn left at a curb cut that’s made
for no left turn from the opposite direction.
This happens all times of the day.
He fears that too big of a sign might cause someone to throw on their
brakes after they miss the sign and then try to make a left turn in front of
traffic. Mr. Somerfel said the same
thing could happen with a too small of sign.
Mrs.
Timmons suggested putting the sign lower so it’s driver level.
Discussed
whether a compromise could be met. Board
liked the sign, but not the size. Discussed reducing size to 75 sq. ft. How would reduction in size impact the sign
as far as height, etc. Mr. Somerfel said
they would be as creative as possible with another design in order to keep the
impact of the tenant panels. An
amendment could be made. Possibly make
panels 12” or 14”.
Mr.
Faulkner asked how much of the frontage of the commercial space is visible from
Rt. 31 after the proposed building goes in.
Mr. Somerfel did not know because he didn’t know how big the building
would be. Mr. Taylor stated for traffic
purposes, the building should not have been built that far back. Parking should have been put along the back
side. Mr. Thornton said considering
existing width of what’s been requested at 9’ wide, 8’ of the remaining space
would make it 72 sq. ft.. Right now it’s at 11, so you’d be taking
about 3’ away.
Mr.
Taylor moved to table this request until Mr. Somerfel has time to get a
recommendation from the property owner, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the
question put stood:
Mr.
Somerfel preferred not to table and take his chances
tonight. He asked if he could amend the
square footage. Response was yes.
Mrs.
Timmons NO Mr. Thornton
NO Mr. Kessler NO
Mr. Taylor NO Mr. Faulkner
NO Mr. McMannis NO Mr.
Mickley NO
Motion
failed.
Mr.
Thornton moved to amend the request by striking the request for 100 sq. ft. and
substituting 72 sq. ft. with a maximum number of tenant signs to be four,
seconded Mr. McMannis and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Thornton YES Mr. Kessler YES
Mr.
Mr.
McMannis YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mrs. Timmons NO
Motion
passed.
Motion as amended, 72 sq. ft. sign with maximum number of four tenant
signs.
Mr.
Kessler YES Mr.
Mr.
Mickley YES Mrs. Timmons
NO Mr. Thornton YES
Variance
denied.
6.
Requesting a conditional use to permit home occupation (video services
business); to be located at
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE: Ms.
McCoy stated a home occupation is a conditional use in the R-2 zoning district.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Dave Dilley addressed
the Board. He is requesting a
conditional use for his home business.
He is a videographer. He does
wedding and event videography, VHS and DVD transfers. Some clients come to the home to drop things
off and pick things up. He is requesting
the ability to use his home as a home base business.
Mr.
Mickley asked what kind of traffic is normally generated daily or weekly. Mr. Dilley stated typically on a daily basis,
there may be 2/3 clients that will come in.
Fairly minimal traffic. He does some advertising. Most of the clients are by appointment. At most, there may be two to three people on
the premises at a time and throughout a day, two to three different groups of
clients that would come in.
Mr.
Mickley asked about deliveries, i.e. UPS, etc.
Mr. Dilley said they don’t have a regular UPS pick up. Pick-ups are by request only.
Mr.
Thornton asked what time of day would customers be coming and going? Mr. Dilley stated they open at 9:30 a.m.
until 11:30 a.m. He then goes out and
does marketing, reopens again at 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Those are the Monday through Friday hours. Saturday hours are 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
noon. Mrs. Timmons asked if he held
those strict hours, and noted there were quite a few cars that come in and out
at night. Mr. Dilley said occasionally
there are people that can’t make it during regular hours, so they stop by in
the evening.
Mr.
McMannis asked if Mr. Dilley had been running this business for quite some
time. Response was the business started
in August of 2004.
Mr.
Taylor stated on behalf of Mr. Dilley’s neighbors, they love him as a neighbor,
but there are several neighbors that are a little offended that a) the business
was put in place without proper procedures, b) that twice, two of his neighbors
couldn’t get out of their driveway because there were vehicles doing business
at a residence that had not been approved and c) there is concern for some of
the delivery vehicles that just zip down the street and park in the middle of
the street so a vehicle can’t get around, i.e. a school bus pickup last
week. A bus driver complained to Mr.
Taylor. One City Council member also has
a concern because the property owners moved into the neighborhood because they
wanted a residential neighborhood; they didn’t want businesses operating out of
their residence. He again stressed that
the neighbors love the Dilley’s as a neighbor; they are just concerned about
the business. Mr. Taylor feels there is
a valid concern on the neighbor’s part.
Mr. Mickley stated that he didn’t see any of neighbors at the
meeting. They have an opportunity to
come and voice their concerns. Mrs.
Timmons said a lot of them call. Mr.
Taylor said he’d gladly speak to Mr. Dilley about the City Councilman who has a
problem with it.
Mrs.
Timmons noted the sign on the door is offensive in the neighborhood. Not only have
neighbors noticed it, but people visiting in the neighborhood as well. The magnetic sign is not appropriate for a
residential neighborhood. Mr. Thornton
asked if the sign was posted only during business hours. Mr. Dilley said he leaves it up all the time. It could be posted just during business hours
if that’s what the Board desires. Mrs.
Timmons asked if Mr. Dilley had a open house for his
business and his response was yes.
Mr.
Dilley expressed his initial concern was when they started the business, he
called the City to request information on getting it zoned, at which point he
was told that it really wasn’t a necessity.
It wasn’t anything that, unless the neighbors were concerned, would be
an issue. He is surprised after being in
business for two years, that all of a sudden there is concern.
Ms.
McCoy responded to Mr. Dilley’s call to the City. She has a lot of people call in and ask if they need a home occupation permit to do taxes on
their home computer for a couple of months.
No one realized that Mr. Dilley had been in business since 2004. She found out because of a full-page article
in the Messenger about the business, so she went by the house and noticed the
sign, which is permitted for a home occupation.
People call her to say they are selling
Mr.
Mickley asked how many people work in the
business. Mr. Dilley responded just
himself at this point. His business occupies
2 rooms, each about 10 x 12’. Ms. McCoy
stated less than 35% of the square footage.
Mrs.
Timmons asked if there were deed restrictions for his subdivision. Mr. Dilley was not aware of any.
Mr.
Mickley stated the definition for home occupation states that no traffic shall
be generated by the business and any need for parking generated shall meet the
off-street parking requirements as specified in this Zoning Ordinance. It doesn’t sound like there is no traffic in
the area.
Mr.
Dilley asked how a business can be established with no traffic. Mrs. Timmons explained that some people have
a business where they do mail order, which may require minimal traffic. If you have two or three clients there at the
same time, that would be considered more traffic than
if you had just clients coming at different times. He said if there was anybody, it would be a
couple coming in to review a video.
Typically in a full day, it’s two to three
clients but not at the same time.
Mr.
McMannis stated it must have created a problem at one time or another or your
neighbors wouldn’t be concerned. Mr.
Dilley is not aware of the items that were discussed in terms of blocking other
people’s parking or driveways. Mr.
Taylor said if Mr. Dilley wanted, he could give him the Councilman’s name and
he could talk to him. Mr. Dilley said he
would be interested in finding out because typically on a regular day there is
his car and one client car in the driveway, so other than the open house, he
can’t imagine …. Mr. Dilley asked if he was
just a regular photographer who did photography out of his home, as opposed to
a videographer that had people come in to view their photos in his studio, is
that any different than what he’s doing? Mr. McMannis responded no.
Mrs.
Timmons said the sign is the biggest complaint that she has received. It’s an upscale neighborhood and people are
upset about the sign. That
and some of the cars going in and out in the evening. She admitted they could be guests too, she
didn’t know.
Mr.
Dilley said he has no issue with removing the sign. Customers will have the address.
Mr.
McMannis moved to approve the home occupation, seconded by Mr. Mickley and the
question put, stood:
Mr.
Taylor NO Mr. Faulkner
NO Mr. McMannis NO Mr.
Mickley YES
Mrs.
Timmons YES Mr. Thornton
YES Mr. Kessler NO
Conditional
use denied.
Mr.
Dilley said that this decision is seriously going to impact his ability to make
money. If he can’t have the business in
his current home, he doesn’t have the income right now to purchase another
facility. Mrs. Timmons confirmed that he
did all the videotaping out of his home.
Mr. Dilley said yes. She
suggested taking it to the client’s house to show it to them. Mr. Dilley said “you’re impacting my
livelihood by this decision.” He asked
if there were any opportunities for appeal? Ms. McCoy stated within ten days, he can
appeal it to the Court of Common Pleas.
“You have that right to do that.”
Mr. Dilley stated, “Okay, cause this just put me out of business.”
7.
Requesting two shopping center identification signs; one to be located
6.60’ from side property line and one 3.17’ from side property line vs. one
shopping center sign permitted, 60’ from side property lines. Located in the SD-1 zoning district; to be
located at the Coleman’s
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE:
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Rob Zeisler addressed
the Board. He works for Bearcreek
Capital and represents Coleman’s Crossing LLC.
He is requesting 2 signs for the Coleman’s
Mrs.
Timmons feels with the store names on the front of the building and with the
slow speed limit on Coleman’s Crossing, there should not be a problem finding
the stores. She has a problem with more
signs.
Mr.
Taylor asked what is the actual maximum square footage for just one sign? Ms. McCoy said
100 sq. ft. is maximum, however, 60 sq. ft. was
approved when the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the signage package for
Coleman’s Crossing Subdivision. The Code
permits only one sign per shopping center.
Even though there are two buildings, it is considered one shopping
center.
The
signs would be double sided with same information on both sides and should set
perpendicular to the road for visibility.
Mrs.
Timmons would like to see smaller signs if two are allowed.
Mr.
Mickley asked if only one sign was permitted, where would
they put it. Mr. Zeisler said in
the middle of the two buildings or else at the entrance closest to
Applebee’s. Ms. McCoy noted a lot of
people come from the other direction as well.
Mr. Zeisler stated they have 570’ on that radius. It truly feels like its two buildings. If they had one even at the regular setback,
he doesn’t think it would feel overwhelming.
It would not take away from this area.
Mrs.
Timmons said she wouldn’t have a problem with two signs if they were done in
good taste.
CITIZEN
COMMENTS: No comments.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton moved to
approve the request to allow two shopping center identifications signs,
striking any references to side distance from property lines vs. one shopping center
sign permitted, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Faulkner asked what dimensions the signs would be. Mr. Thornton stated the signs are part of the
approved plat. What the Board is
approving is whether to allow two versus one.
However, that does not prevent the Board from discussing the size of the
sign. Mrs. Timmons amended the motion
to have each monument sign no more than 50 sq. ft, 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. Kessler YES Mr. Taylor YES
Motion
passed.
Motion to approve request.
Mr.
McMannis YES Mr. Mickley
YES Mrs. Timmons YES
Mr. Thornton YES Mr. Kessler
YES Mr. Taylor YES
Mr. Faulkner YES
Variance
granted.
Mr.
Taylor asked that Ms. McCoy properly inform Mr. Dilley of the appeal process.
Mr.
Mickley commented that he preferred that if people are going to talk to the
Board members and say they don’t like something, that they be invited to show
up at the meeting. He feels the party
has a right to face them to find out what the problem is. They could also write a letter expressing
concern, but attending the meeting would be preferred.
Mr.
Taylor agrees with Mr. Mickley, however, he feels the job of the Board is to
speak for the rights of minority. Had
the applicant asked for the names, Mr.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.