MINUTES OF THE CATAWBA ISLAND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
August 12, 2015
Attendees
Barbara Kahler
Kathryn Smith
Lee Short
Amy Hefflinger
Erik Anderson
Dwight & Barbara Roll
Joseph Williamson
Chris Schadewald
Jack Hilbert
Austin Irving
Kathryn Dale
Rick Dale
Rebecca Anderson
Laura Masimore
Mike Johnson
Tomi Johnson
William Shackleford
Dan Leidheiser
Robert Pierce
Alfred Herold
Matt Montowski
Chairman Bryan Baugh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Board members were introduced by Chairman Bryan Baugh and included: Sandy Erwin, Jack Zeigler, Jack DeVore and Doug Blackburn. Mr. Baugh then introduced Walter Wehenkel, Township Zoning Inspector, and Matt Montowski, Township Trustee. Mr. Baugh read through the procedure to be followed for the meeting. He asked if there were any questions regarding the procedure by those in attendance. There were none.
Case #668178 – Chris and Lori Schadewald
Chairman Baugh requested Sandra Erwin read the information for the first case. Mrs. Erwin reported the request is for an area variance being requested by Chris & Lori Schadewald for property at 1308 N. Orchard Beach Drive and also known as lots 87 & 88 of Orchard Beach Subdivision in Catawba Island Township. The property is zoned “R-3”. The request is for an area variance from the required side yard setback for an addition to the principal building. The required side yard setback of 10 feet is being reduced to 7 feet on one end and 8 ½ feet on the other end of the proposed addition. An 8 foot by 24 foot addition will be constructed on the lot if the variance is approved. There is no notarized correspondence, all fees have been paid and notifications made.
Mr. Baugh asked if any Board member had a conflict of interest. There were none. Mr. Baugh asked who was present to address the case. Mr. Chris Schadewald of 1308 N. Orchard Beach Drive introduced himself and was sworn in by Mr. Baugh.
Mr. Schadewald stated the information provided is self-explanatory. He has a two car garage presently and would like to add an addition to it in order to store his golf cart and lawnmower.
There would be a distance of 16 feet to 18 feet between his home and that of his neighbor. It would be cedar shingled to match the existing structure. He offered to answer any questions the Board members might have.
Jack DeVore stated nothing stood out as a problem when he viewed the site. Sandra Erwin asked if the existing tree was being removed. Mr. Schadewald said yes. Mr. Zeigler asked if the applicant had considered going to the back of the garage as an alternate location. Mr. Schadewald stated the stairs to the second floor deck would be in the way and the space would be insufficient in area. Bryan Baugh asked if sheds were permitted in the subdivision. Mr. Schadewald stated they were permitted, but everything would not fit into a shed. Mr. Baugh asked if the homeowners association had reviewed and approved the proposal. Mr. Schadewald stated he had association approval.
Rebecca Anderson was sworn in by Bryan Baugh. Ms. Anderson stated she had received the public notice in the mail and subsequently requested a copy of the application that was provided by Mr. Wehenkel. She was initially concerned over the loss of her view of the Lake, but after reviewing the plans, the proposed addition is back far enough so it will not block her view and would be okay. Mr. Schadewald agreed that was very important. Bryan Baugh asked Ms. Anderson where she resides. Ms. Anderson stated she is to the south of the request. Mrs. Anderson wondered about the height of the addition. Mr. Schadewald stated it would be below the deck height. Ms. Anderson was fine with that.
Chairman Baugh asked for additional testimony. There was none. Chairman Baugh closed the public hearing. Mr. Blackburn stated the request is pretty “cut and dry.” Mr. Baugh added it would not affect any governmental services. Mr. Baugh asked Sandra Erwin to read the Finding of Fact. Sandra Erwin read the Finding of Fact. The Board members unanimously voted yes to questions 1, 5, 6, & 7. The Board members unanimously voted no to questions 2, 3, & 4.
Chairman Baugh asked for a motion on case #668178. Doug Blackburn moved that it be approved as presented. Jack DeVorte seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Case # 668184 – Dwight and Barbara Roll
Chairman Baugh requested the case information be read by Sandra Erwin. Mrs. Erwin stated the request is for area variances being requested by Dwight and Barbara Roll for property at 1585 Edgewater Drive and also known as Sublot 21, except the northeast 10 feet, of Kenykirk Subdivision in Catawba Island Township. The property is zoned “R-3”. The request would allow area variances from the required front and rear yard setbacks for an addition to the principal building. The required front yard setback of 35 feet is being reduced to 27.69 feet. The rear yard setback of 25 feet is being reduced to 14.18 feet. A porch and three car attached garage are being proposed if the variances are approved. All notifications have been made, all fees have been paid, and each Board member received correspondence from a legal counsel.
Chairman Baugh asked if there were any conflicts with the case. The Board members indicated there were no conflicts. Bryan Baugh asked Jack Hilbert if the correspondence from his law firm would be addressed during the hearing. Mr. Hilbert stated his associate, Austin Irving, would be addressing the correspondence provided to the Board members. Chairman Baugh stated it would not be read into the record at this time. (It is attached as Exhibit 1.)
Chairman Baugh asked who was present to discuss the request. Lee Short introduced himself and was sworn in by Chairman Baugh.
Mr. Short stated the Rolls have moved back from Florida and are going to make this their permanent home. They are proposing to renovate through an addition the existing home and garage. Kenykirk Association has approved the plans. The front yard setback is to allow a porch to be added. The rear yard setback is for a new garage addition. The plans are to build to the north which will partially block the view from the glassed in porch for the neighbor to the east. This did influence the final design of the addition.
The Rolls were victims of the same thing when structures were built on the Lake side of the street. Mr. Short stated there are no sight line easements recorded in the County Courthouse, according to the surveyor. The Rolls looked at alternate plans like shifting the garage ninety degrees, shrinking the size of the addition, and lowering the garage floor to lower the second story. The present plan has the eave height of the garage meeting the eave height of the existing house. The lay of the land created the major portion of the problems.
Mr. Short approached the Board with a drawing that showed the plans in greater detail. He stated the thirty-six foot garage will go from a three car garage to a two car garage to comply with the Kenykirk deed restrictions. The front porch has been proposed to break up the front façade which is long and to build character into the structure. The Rolls are elderly people, but are okay with lowering the garage floor. It is two feet down. Mr. Short referred to a plan before the Board that identified the interior rooms that would exist if the addition were constructed.
Mr. Short reiterated that two variances are being requested. One in the front yard for the porch and one in the rear yard for the new addition. He stated this could be done without a variance and showed two alternate plans. The north wall could be extended twelve more feet which would block even more of the view and the neighbors would look at the rear of the garage instead of the marina. The present plan is detrimental to the neighbor, but they are only losing some of their view. If you stand at the glassed in porch, you could see the marina and channel from the north side. It is detrimental, but nearly as bad as it could be. He stated his response on the Finding of Fact concerning the loss of site line was tied more to the front porch than the garage portion. The garage portion took site line loss into effect and this has been explained.
Sandra Erwin asked about the alternative plans. Mr. Short stated they would have a shorter garage planned, but reiterated, a variance would not be required for either of the alternates. Jack Zeigler asked for clarification on the point that the variance request would give the neighbors more view than the alternative plans. Mr. Short stated that was correct. The two alternatives that do not require a variance would result in a longer structure that would block more views. Bryan Baugh asked about the height of the structure. Mr. Short explained various locations but summarized it would be about twenty-four feet.
Mr. Blackburn asked how viable the alternate plans were? Mr. Short stated they would both work and the Rolls would select one if they had to go that way. The Rolls knew their original plan would be an issue with the neighbors. Mr. Short stated that about fifty percent of the neighbor’s view would be salvaged with the variance plan. It is a single platted lot. Mr. Short stated he was unsure what the neighbor’s thoughts would be with the alternate plans. He wondered if the neighbors acquired the property thinking it was a non-buildable lot area.
Mr. Zeigler asked if the front porch would influence anyone’s view. Mr. Short stated it would not. It is a functional porch (6’ 8”) that will be screened in. Mr. Blackburn stated it could certainly be worse. Mr. Short agreed stating he believed the owner could build within ten feet of the property line and asked Mr. Wehenkel for his opinion. Mr. Wehenkel stated the side yard setback in the “R-3” zoning district is ten feet. Mr. Baugh asked if any thought was given to adding onto the south end. Mr. Short stated no thought was given to that option as a substantial variance request would be needed, probably closer than fourteen feet to the right-of-way. Mr. Short stated that the finding of fact questions related to the impact on the neighbors was really more about the front porch than the addition.
Mr. Short stated the proposed plan functionally works for the Rolls. Their existing fireplace would not have a Lake view. They really did not want to build another fireplace. They will have several room with water views. He believes strictly from the point of views, the alternate plans make more sense. There were no further questions from the Board for Mr. Short.
Chairman Baugh asked if anyone in attendance had questions for Mr. Short. Austin Irving of the law firm of Schumaker, Loop, and Kendrick LLP was sworn in by Mr. Baugh. He asked Mr. Short if the probative reason for selecting the variance option was for non-obstruction of the neighbor’s view. Mr. Short stated yes, but they looked at both options. The Rolls also looked at going upward, but the costs increased. Mr. Irving asked if the cost issue would change by the neighbors providing some cash incentives. Mr. Short stated that has not been discussed with his client so he could not provide an answer and stated “That is a question for my client to answer.”
Bryan Baugh swore in Jack Hilbert from Schumaker, Loop, and Kendrick LLP. Mr. Hilbert asked what conditions were peculiar to this property. He stated condition peculiar to the property are the basis for all area variance decisions. Mr. Short stated the variance is required because it is a shallow property. Turning the garage ninety degrees requires the rear yard setback variance. The lot is long and narrow which is why the alternate plan moving the structure twelve more feet to the north works better. Mr. Hilbert asked Mr. Short if his clients bought the property with knowledge of the size of the property. Mr. Short stated he assumed that they did so.
Mr. Hilbert stated the approval from the Homeowner’s Association requires a thirty-five foot setback. Chairman Baugh stated the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot consider the Homeowner’s Association requirements in reaching its decision. Mr. Short stated he always goes to the homeowners association in every subdivision to determine that his plans comply with private restrictions. The full plan was submitted to them. Mr. Hilbert stated the Board of Appeals could make it subject to the Homeowner’s Association requirements. Mr. Baugh stated the township requirements supersede those of the homeowner’s association.
Bryan Baugh swore in Kathryn Dale. Ms. Dale asked if she could approach the Board and was given permission to do so. (She had a written statement with exhibits that is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.)
Ms. Dale started her presentation with “Good Evening.” She stated that she wanted to establish that while her husband and she were not on the "Notification List" due to how the property lines fall, she felt they did have standing as an adjacent property owner who is directly affected by the Board’s decision. The Roll property is directly across the street and slightly to the left of their home. Ms. Dale stated she is the current zoning inspector for Danbury Township, which has similar regulations as Catawba Island. She has a full understating of zoning and has been interpreting zoning codes for 15 years. This is what she does on a day-to-day basis. Jack Zeigler asked exactly where her home was located. Kathy Dale showed it on a map and reiterated she believed they have standing too.
Ms. Dale stated she wanted to bring to light some items for the Board’s consideration. The Zoning Certificate/Permit application was dated July 17th by Mr. Short. The permit application was denied on July 24th. This is two days after the appeal application was filed on July 22nd. Ms. Dale stated she understood that owners can file directly without being denied, this situation is still a clerical technicality with grounds to appeal, whatever your decision may be.
Ms. Dale stated the Zoning Certificate/Permit application at the very bottom states that:
"In addition to a site plan, applications for new dwellings, new commercial buildings, accessory structures or additions to existing buildings will need to submit a copy of the floor plan and exterior elevations (all four sides) drawn either to scale or with accurate dimensions indicating room sizes and overall building height from the finish grade."
According to Mr. Wehenkel's email (provided on the second page of the handout) to Ms. Dale, when this information was requested of him on July 24th after receiving the "guts" of the request, he stated that elevation drawings were not a requirement of the variance process. Ms. Dale stated she felt this is essential information in considering the request, not only for the Board, but in Mr. Wehenkel’s review process. Aside from dimensions and square footage not being included on the permit application, due to the lack of all four side elevations being shown, the appeal application is subsequently incomplete and should be denied as a result.
Ms. Dale also noted that nowhere on the application, nor in the public hearing notice, was there a single reference to the exact Article or Section of the Zoning Resolution for which the variance was being requested. Ms. Dale stated the Board could presume Section 2.4 (General Regulations) which states:
"No building or structure shall be erected, converted, added to, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the yard and lot area regulations of the District in which the building is located, and as required in accordance with Section 7."
is the basis for refusal of the permit, but that is not quoted in the refusal or notice. Ms. Dale stated the sections that should be listed would be Section 4, "R-3", 4. & 6, referencing the front and rear yard setback requirements. These references should have been included in the notification, refusal and request for the Boards consideration as well.
Ms. Dale stated the Roll's house is currently a nonconforming structure/building according to page 109 of the Resolution because it does not meet the 25' rear yard setback (it is 21.68') or the required 35' front yard setback (it's 34.36') per the survey they submitted. She asked Mr. Wehenkel and the Board members if they agreed. There was no response.
Ms. Dale stated that according to Section 7.D.6 (Pg.109) – Supplemental Nonconforming Buildings and Uses, this section states:
Enlargement of Non-Conforming Buildings: The addition to or enlargement of a non-conforming building may be permitted, provided such addition, enlargement, or replacement complies with the height and area regulations of the District in which it is located and that the total aggregate ground floor area included in all such separate enlargements does not exceed twenty (20) percent of the ground floor area contained in said non-conforming building on the effective date of this Resolution, as amended. A second floor may be added above the existing foot print of the existing first floor and not be considered as an enlargement of the non-conforming building. (7/97) (8/06) (5/13)
Ms. Dale stated that per this section the applicant should be limited to a 20% increase in floor area. If you take the 28.7 x 38.6 house area (which does not include the carport) the applicant has 1,107.82 square feet of "total aggregate ground floor area". Twenty percent of that would allow them to have a 221.56 square foot addition. (Actually less if the existing enclosed porch is removed from the calculation) Ms. Dale clarified the physical garage portion should not be added in as it is not occupied under Section 4, “R-3” District, sub item 7. The porch is 6.5 feet by 18 feet or 117 square feet. The applicant shows 120 square feet. The carport remodel to living space is 12 feet by 36 feet or 432 square feet. Ms. Dale stated that is why the applicant has 1,540 square feet on their permit application as it lists the size of the total first floor. Ms. Dale stated that if the Board adds the 120 square feet with the 552 square feet on just the ground floor, that total is a 49.8% increase. If the Board takes into account the 684 square feet on the new second floor, that is 1,236 square feet and more than doubles the size of the house
Ms. Dale stated that Danbury Township has almost the exact language with the exception if the second floor being able to be added above an existing first floor. Ms. Dale stated that Mr. Wehenkel and the applicants failed to include the necessary variance in the notification, his refusal, and in the material submitted for your consideration. Ms. Dale stated that without the third variance, the project cannot move forward. She felt the hearing should be stopped immediately, and the application denied, not only on the grounds of insufficient information previously mentioned, but due to the fact that there is a major component of the request missing. Improper notice has been given and the application needs to be resubmitted and re-advertised with the appropriate sections quoted and requested. Ms. Dale stated that should the Board continue the hearing, there decision would be overturned by the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas for illegal procedures. Ms. Dale stated she has more to address, but did not want to proceed until she understood the Board’s position on the third variance. I think they have other options and I am prepared to share them with you.
Bryan Baugh asked Ms. Dale how the proposed variance affects her. Ms. Dale stated her view of the marina would be 100% blocked. Mr. Baugh asked how much of a view she presently has. Ms. Dale stated she has a view from portions of her first floor. Mr. Baugh stated the applicant could construct an addition without the need for a front or rear yard variance. They could probably block all of her views. Ms. Dale stated that is not what is before you tonight. Mr. Baugh asked for a simple yes or no answer. Ms. Dale said no based upon the twenty (20) percent criteria. She believed they had other options.
Doug Blackburn stated he agreed with Mr. Baugh’s summary concerning the alternative options not requiring a variance. The applicant could build within the setbacks and legally block the view. Jack Hilbert stated a non-conforming building can only be expanded by twenty (20) percent, which is a 220 square foot addition. Jack DeVore questioned if the building was even non-conforming. Ms. Dale stated it is, and therefore, the twenty (20) percent criteria should apply. It is grandfathered and can continue to exist.
Mr. Wehenkel requested the Board review the definition of a non-conforming building in their zoning resolution. It is tied to “use”. He stated he had a conversation concerning the definition and the criteria with Mr. Irving last week and he seemed to comprehend the language. The Board members looked at the definition. They also reviewed the non-conforming twenty (20) percent statement in the supplemental regulations.
Ms. Dale stated that in the beginning of the definitions in the zoning resolution there is a preamble that identified certain words includes other words. She specifically called out the words “used for includes designed for”. Ms. Dale stated “used for” does include “designed for.”
Mr. Baugh read the definition on non-conforming building. Chairman Baugh asked how the residence became non-conforming. Ms. Dale stated “use” can be used in two different ways. Ms. Dale stated these are two separate issues. Non-conforming uses and non-conforming buildings. The interpretation is that it is a conforming use in a non-conforming structure or it is a use designed or altered for a use that does not conform to the design regulations.
Sandra Erwin asked how this is a non-conforming use in a residential setting. Ms. Dale explained that the definition of use can be a non-conforming use in a conforming structure, or a non-conforming use in a non-conforming structure, or a permitted use in a non-conforming structure. Mr. Baugh stated he did not agree with that statement.
Ms. Dale suggested the Board review the definition of a building. Ms. Dale then read the definition to the Board. Mr. DeVore asked Ms. Dale if a house is a building. Ms. Dale stated it was. Bryan Baugh stated the Board could listen to semantics all night long and suggested Ms. Dale continue her presentation.
Ms. Dale continued with her summary of the Duncan Standards identified in the Finding of Fact.
For question #1 of the Finding of Fact, Ms. Dale stated the property can continue to be used for its highest and best use as residential. The property is 85 feet deep once the 35 foot front and 25 foot rear setbacks are removed from the number, the owners have 25 feet left in depth for a garage or addition. This is ample space to accommodate the depth of a vehicle in a garage and the zoning code supports this concept in Section 5 by only requiring a 10 foot by 20 foot parking space. It is also ample depth to meet minimum room size requirement of the Ohio Basic Building Code.
For question #2, of the Finding of Fact, Ms. Dale said that the applicant did not believe the request was substantial because no sight lines were being blocked. This is completely untrue. The area of the proposed build that require a variance would have a direct impact on sight lines. Ms. Dale referred to photographs showing how her sight line to the marina would be completely blocked by the proposed addition. Though Ms. Dale stated she has no view of the Lake, she does have a view of the harbor and their boat which would be gone with the expansion. Ms. Dale also provided a second photograph that showed the impact would be minimized if the Rolls met the setback requirements, converted their existing carport into an actual garage and added on a second standard size garage bay. Ms. Dale stated their home is 1 of 5 that does not have a view of the Lake. They request they be able to dock their boat in the marina so that they can watch it from their home.
For question #6, of the Finding of Fact, Ms. Dale stated if the owner’s goal is to gain 2 bedrooms and enclosed garage space, they can accomplish this by adding a second story over their existing home as opposed to new construction and they could do so without needing any variances. That would only leave the garage portion of the proposed addition. The Board does not need to redesign a project for the applicant.
The applicant stated they looked at other alternatives but have not presented them to the Board. Ms. Dale stated she believes they would include elongating the garage, which would accomplish nothing but to jab the surrounding neighbors and benefit themselves, when in reality there’s been no discussion about making this a forward facing/loading garage or adding on along Edgewater Drive or even trying to bump out at the curve with Kirk Drive.
Ms. Dale admitted variances might still be needed for expansion in these directions, neither of those areas would have as much of a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties and the Rolls would ultimately still be able to achieve their goal for additional garage space, a remodeled living space and two additional bedrooms. She requested the Board members review the photographs she submitted. The proposed addition is more than double the size of the house where only twenty (20) percent is permitted.
Ms. Dale stated that in closing the purpose of variances are to establish that a practical difficulty and hardship exists if the strict interpretation of the zoning requirements are applied. There has been no indication that the site/property or the rules prevent these owners from accomplishing their goal of adding garage space and two bedrooms. Simply put, Ms. Dale stated what has been presented to the Board this evening is a want and not a need. Wants don’t justify hardships or practical difficulties. Ms. Dale stated that with this in mind, the application as presented should be denied. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them.
Austin Irving stated he would make some general comments and keep his presentation brief. The definition of non-conforming in the zoning resolution is poorly written. He stated when he discussed the issue with Mr. Wehenkel last week and felt that Mr. Wehenkel agreed. He did not mean to offend anyone who may have written the definition. He stated it did not make sense given that the very next definition is one for non-conforming use; yet references in almost all instances are to non-conforming use instead of non-conforming building. It would not make sense to have two definitions of non-conforming use right next to one another, but that may need to be determined by the Court of Common Pleas.
Mr. Irving continued that the architect’s statement that the proposal was designed taking into consideration the neighbor’s view was interesting. He asked if the applicant or Mr. Short had approached the neighbors. He wondered if the neighbors might have been willing to provide resources to assist the applicant financially if the plans were altered. Mr. Irving stated there is a litany of reasons why the variance should not be granted. He suggested the denial of the variance request might actually assist the Rolls. He wondered if there was any written correspondence between the two parties. He stated the Board members have his letter and have read it. Based upon his written responses to the Finding of Fact questions and for the only reasons given tonight, Mr. Irving stated the variance should not be granted.
Lee Short stated notices were sent out to the adjoining property owners. He did mention to Ms. Dale about the request. The Rolls wanted to talk to the adjoining neighbor and show the project to them and let them know they would be losing some of their view, but not all of it. He missed them by a few minutes on one occasion. He admitted they are losing some view, but they would have fifty (50) percent remaining.
Mr. Short stated he does not believe the twenty (20) percent criteria applies based upon the zoning definitions. He stated that he has done a lot of architectural work and a lot of it includes additions to non-conforming buildings. This type of criteria has not been previously applied to conforming uses.
Mr. Irving stated the architect just stated it was a non-conforming building. This is another instance where a non-conforming building does exist and should be subject to the twenty (20) percent rule. It would have seemed reasonable for Mr. Short and the Rolls have made every possible effort to contact the adjoining owner either be leaving a note or making a phone call.
At this point, Bryan Baugh called for a short recess to allow the Board members to deliberate in another room concerning the testimony. The Board returned to the hearing room.
Upon returning to the meeting room, Chairman Baugh called the hearing to order and continued the hearing. He stated the Board members had a few questions that came up during the recess. Jack Zeigler asked Mr. Irving if he has had conversation with the neighbors concerning the financial considerations that might be offered. Mr. Irving stated he has talked to the neighbor and they might be willing to pay a substantial amount of money to the Rolls towards the cost of plans, building, etc. Mr. Zeigler asked for clarification if it was only one neighbor. Mr. Irving stated that direct conversations with only one neighbor and it could mean upwards of ½ of the price of the home that is being discussed.
Chairman Baugh stated the Board is looking to table the pending variance request this evening and continue it at the Board’s September 9th meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Board members want to review the material submitted including the non-conforming information. He requested a copy of Ms. Dale’s presentation which she provided to him. He also recommended the Rolls talk to the neighbors concerning any negotiations that might be possible.
Doug Blackburn moved to table case #668184 to the September 9th meeting. Sandra Erwin seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Ms. Dale requested copies of the applicant’s alternative plans be provided to her. Mr. Baugh stated that would occur in a timely manner. A question was asked if additional testimony would be taken on September 9th. Mr. Baugh stated some additional testimony would be allowed.
Case #668185 Helen Shackleford
Bryan Baugh requested Sandra Erwin read the facts concerning this case. Mrs. Erwin stated
an area variance being requested by Helen Shackleford for property at 3595 N. Southway and also known as sub lot 422 and the vacated road of Catawba Cliffs Subdivision in Catawba Island Township. The property is zoned “R-1”. The request would allow an area variance from the required rear yard setback for an existing accessory building/cottage to be connected to a new principal building being constructed. The required rear yard setback of 35 feet is being reduced to 5 feet. The existing accessory building/cottage was built prior to the zoning regulations going into effect. All fees have been paid, notifications processed and there is no notarized correspondence.
Mr. Baugh asked if there was any member with a conflict of interest. There was none. Mr. Baugh asked who was present to discuss this request. Dan Leidheiser introduced himself as the builder and was sworn in by Mr. Baugh.
Mr. Leidheiser stated there was an existing home and an existing cottage on their property. The old home was torn down and a new home will be built in its place. The variance is needed to tie the two buildings together with a breezeway. Bryan Baugh asked if there was an additional structure being built. Mr. Leidheiser stated there was not. Only a roof will be built to tie the two homes together as one. Mr. Blackburn asked if the connected was necessary due to the County requiring a second sewer tap if it did not occur. Mr. Leidheiser stated that was correct. There were no other questions from the Board members.
Chairman Baugh swore in Barbara Kahler who wished to speak to the Board about the request. Ms. Kahler showed a website picture of her structure on Karwood Drive. Jack Zeigler asked if it was to the south. Ms. Kahler showed him the location on the map. Ms. Kahler stated her only concern is with the second paragraph of the hearing notice that states the request may be continued from time to time.
Ms. Kahler stated she is an adjoining property owner. She has no problem with the variance as presented as long as any other construction would be required to comply with the thirty-five foot setback requirement. Connecting the old cottage to the new house is fine. She doesn’t feel it needs to be moved. But she wants to be assured that future construction must meet the thirty-five foot setback requirement. She does not want this variance to give the owner permission for future requests.
Bryan Baugh stated the Board looks at each case individually. The only authorization being given to the owner is the request before the Board. The owner could request additional variances in the future, but another hearing would be required. Ms. Kahler stated they own three lots. She just is concerned that from time to time does not give them permission for future buildings.
Mr. Wehenkel reminded the Board and Ms. Kahler that an accessory building could be built within twenty feet of the lot line without a variance. That was the only exception for new construction. Ms. Kahler understood the comment.
Sandra Erwin read the Finding of Fact. The Board unanimously voted yes to questions #1 and #7. They all voted no to questions #2, #3, and #4. There were 2 no and 3 yes votes to question #5 and 3 yes and 2 no votes to question #6.
Bryan Baugh requested a motion for case #668185. Sandra Erwin moved to approve case #668185 as presented. Jack Zeigler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Other Business
Mr. Baugh stated the discussion of the fence at 5121 Sloan Street needed to be resolved. He asked each Board member if they felt the erected fence was a privacy fence as authorized by the Zoning Inspector. Four members voted no with Bryan Baugh voting yes. He asked each Board member if the negotiated height to match the adjoining fence on the Miller Boat Line property was acceptable. All Board members voted yes.
Doug Blackburn stated you can see through the fence. Jack DeVore stated another slat is needed on the back side of the fence to close the gaps and make it look the same on both sides. Sandra Erwin and Jack Zeigler both agreed with the comments. Tomi Johnson stated she had pictures of privacy fences and websites that would say that the fence is a privacy fence. Mike Johnson stated he wanted some airflow through the property which is why he left the small spaces. The adjoining property owner cannot even see the fence from his home. There is ten feet of brush between the fence and the home. Jack DeVore said if you can see through it, it is not a privacy fence.
Jack DeVore asked where the lot line is located. Mr. Johnson stated the fence is just about on the lot line. Mr. Johnson agreed to nail additional one-by one boards on the back side of the fence.
Mr. Baugh asked if the Board had any comments on the proposed five foot extension being requested at the Orchard Restaurant. There were no comments. Jack DeVore moved to approve the modification. Sandra Erwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
Jack DeVore moved to approve the July 8th meeting minutes as mailed. Doug Blackburn seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Adjournment
Sandra Erwin moved to adjourn. Jack DeVore seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully,
___________________________ ____________________________
Bryan Baugh, Chairman Sandra Erwin, Secretary