Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[A. Call to Order - 7:00 pm]

[00:00:02]

>> PLEASE READ THE NEXT ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE THURSDAY JULY 2, 2020 MEETING OF THE WORTHINGTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

GIVEN THE STATE'S ORDERS AGAINST PUBLIC GATHERS WE MOVED OUR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING TO A VIRTUAL PLATFORM AND WE HAVE A NUMBER TO CONNECT TO THE MEETING AND ON THE YOU'LL BE 3 ABLE TO SEE FOUR TO NINE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN AND TYPICALLY THE LAST PEOPLE TO SPEAK. WE ARE CONDUCTING OUR VIRTUAL MEETING TO OUR LIVE STREAM TECHNOLOGY SO THE PUBLIC CAN OBSERVE THE MEETING. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS MADE OF FIVE MEMBERS AND WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS REQUIRED FOR THE PASSAGE OF ANY ITEM. ALSO PRESENT TONIGHT ARE MR. BROWN, AND TWO CITY STAFF. I'LL FIRST ASK THE AGENDA ITEMS BE EXPLAINED BY CITY STAFF. FOLLOWING THAT I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO BE VIRTUALLY SWORN IN AND PRESENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS I WILL THEN ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND THEN GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION. PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE SPEAKING AND YOU WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN BY CITY STAFF. MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION AND - YOU MAY ASK THE BOARD TO TABLE YOUR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCESS. WE HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS FOR WAYS THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS.

FIRST, -MAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO CITY STAFF AT PLANNING AT WORTHINGTON.ORG FOR COMMENTS TO BE READ DURING THE MEETING AND YOU CAN CALL USING YOUR PHONE THE NUMBER IS 1-567-249-0063 CONFERENCE 347 008 362 THE CONFERENCE I.D. IS 45677589 POUND.

YOU'LL BE MUTED UPON ENTRY AND WILL NEED TO HIT STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. THIS IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE WHERE YOU ARE ACCESSING THE LIVE STREAM OF THE MEETING AND SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AS WELL. THERE WILL BE TIMES WHEN WE WILL PAUSE TO ALLOW THERE ARE THE LIVE STREAM TO CATCH UP AND PHONE CALLS TO COME IN. IF YOU WERE PLANNING TO SPEAK ON THE CASE 2566 DYER STREET. THAT'S TABLE.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

. >> CLERK: MR. COULTER.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER: HERE. >> CLERK: MR. SEITZ.

>> B. SEITZ: HERE. >> CLERK: MS. CRANE.

>> C. CRANE: WE HAVE MINUTES PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ARE THERE COMMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND SECOND.

>> MOVED AND APPROVED. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER: ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE. THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED.

[4. Variance – Setback & Screening – 6625 Guyer St. (Schorr Architects/Worthingway Middle School) BZA 21-2020]

WE'LL GO TO ITEM 4 A VARIANCE FOR SETBACK AND SKREENGS AT --

SCREENING THEYED TO TABLE. >> C. CRANE: ALL IN FAVOR SAY

[00:05:02]

AYE TO MOVE AND TABLE. >> AYE.

>> C. CRANE: ANY OPPOSED? THAT ITEM HAZ B -- HAS BEEN TABLED. IF YOU ARE HERE SOLELY FOR THAT ITEM YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN IN ANY MORE.

YOU CAN STAY IF YOU WANT TO. MOVING ON TO OUR ITEMS FOR

[1. Variance – Rear Yard Setback – New Warehouse – 1018 Proprietors Rd. (Michael J. Maistros, AIA) BZA 16-2020]

PUBLIC HEARING AN ITEM OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS, THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK FOR A WAREHOUSE AT 1018 PROPRIETORS ROAD, APPLICANT IS MICHAEL J.MAISTROS.

I NEED A NOTION GET THAT OFF THE TABLE.

CAN I HAVE ONE. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> C. CRANE: ALL IN FAVOR SAY

AYE. >> AYE.

>> C. CRANE: THOSE OPPOSED? MAY I HAVE CITY STAFF'S

PRESENTATION, PLEASE. >> YES, MA'AM.

I'LL SHARE Y SCREEN REAL QUICK. CAN EVERYONE SEE WHAT'S ON THE

SCREEN? >> YES.

>> THINGS HAVE CHANGE FROM THE JUNE EETING TO THE JULY 22 MEETING THE PARCEL IS IN OUR RESTRICTED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. A LAND LOCKED PARCEL WITH AN EASEMENT ACCESS THAT FRONTS ON PROPRIETORS ROAD.

AND THE EASTERN BOUNDARY ABOVE TO THE NORTH RAILROAD RITE -- RIGHT OF WAY. WHAT YOU SAW AT THE LAST MEETING ALMOST WAS A 24,000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SINCE THEN THE APPLICANT HAS REVISIONS FROM THE COMMENTS HEARD AND REDUCED THE BUILDING.

IT'S STILL A TWO-STORY BUILDING. ONLY A SMALL PORTION WILL HAVE A SECOND STORY BUT REDUCED IT TO 13,850 SQUARE FEET.

AGAIN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE YOU CAN SEE MY MOUSE ON HERE THE ONLY PORTION THAT WILL BE A TWO STORY PORTION AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THE 13,850 IS INCLUDED N THE TWO STORY PORTION. AGAIN, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE I1 DISTRICT DOES PERMIT STRUCTURES UP TO THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT.

ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS IT'S BEFORE YOU SINCE IT IS A LAND LOCKED PARCEL WE ONSIDER THE PARCEL HAS A TRIANGLE OF SORTS WITH SETBACKS TO BE 30 FEET. TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY WITHOUT IT BEING IN THE MIDDLE MAKES IT DIFFICULT SO THEY'RE QUE -- REQUESTING FROM A 30-FOOT SETBACK TO THE NEW REQUEST. ONE OF THE THINGS ALSO BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE CONCERN RELATED TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WAS NEEDED.

WITH THEIR REVISIONS AND DROPPING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALMOST IN HALF, BRINGS IT DOWN TO PROVIDE 71 PARKING SPACES WHERE PREVIOUSLY 39 WERE PROPOSED AND THAT WAS ONE COMMENT AND CONCERN FROM STAFF AND THE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE ONLY REQUIRES 58 PARKING SPACES SO THEY'RE ARE EXCEEDING WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE. SO THERE WILL BE NO ISSUES WITH PARKING. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT ANOTHER EXHIBIT BUT I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO PULL IT INTO THE POWER POINT THAT RELATED TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE SITE AND THE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS AND BEING ABLE TO TURN ON THE SITE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. WITH THIS WE DID TAKE IT TO THE SERVICE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR CONFIRMATION REGARDING THE STORM WATER DISCUSSIONS FROM LAST TIME.

IN CONVERSATION S WITH THE SERVICE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ALL STORM WATER REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THEIR NEXT STAGE WITH CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL E.P.A. REQUIREMENT FOR ON-SITE RETENTION FOR WATER QUALITY AND QUANT AND REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY SAW, TWO-STORY BUILDING, A PORTION WAS GOING TO HAVE FUNCTIONAL SPACE ABOVE, REVIVED ELEVATIONS IS BEFORE YOU.

[00:10:03]

I'LL QUICKLY GO THROUGH PICTURES AND THEN GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN. THAT WAS A DISCUSSION A LOT OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD COMMENTS UPON THIS IS LOOKING TO THE SITE FROM PROPRIETORS ROAD LOOKING EAST WITH THE RAILROAD MUSEUM TO THE RIGHT. IF YOU SEE ANYTHING YOU WANT ME TO SLOW DOWN ON JUST GIVE ME A YELL.

YOU HAD THIS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN AND LOOKING BACK FROM PROPRIETORS. THIS IS THE GENERAL AREA OF THE 13,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE MIX OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE SPACE.

>> C. CRANE: I DON'T SEE THE RAILROAD ANYWHERE.

WHERE IS IT? >> IN THIS PICTURE YOU SEE IT THROUGH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PICTURE.

YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF IT THROUGH THERE.

>> C. CRANE: IS IT VISIBLE OR MOSTLY COVERED BY VEGETATION?

>> A LOT IS COVERED BY VEGETATION BUT SITS UP A LITTLE BIT. YOU CAN SEE THIS PORTION.

YOU CAN SEE THE TOP PARTS OF THE TRAINS GOING THROUGH HERE.

THEN LOOKING EAST AND THEN SOUTH AND BACK NORTH.

THIS IS ALSO THE AREA THE NEW OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. AGAIN IT WILL BE 10 FEET FROM THE EASTERN ORDER LINE THAT BUT THE NORFOLK SOUTHERN PROPERTY. AS MENTIONED LAST TIME, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL FOR THIS PROPRIETORS ROAD, GOING NORTH OF THAT CONSTRUCTION YOU SEE MACK CONSTRUCTION'S BUILDINGS GOING TOWARDS THE EAST THERE. YOU KIND OF SEE A MIX OF SETBACKS ON THE REAR TOWARDS NORFOLK SOUTHERN FROM 30 FEET AND SOME ARE RIGHT AT THE BUILDING LINE OR RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINE. SEE A MIX GOING NORTH AND THE SETBACKS. THIS IS STILL THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. I'LL GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN AGAIN SO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE NOW TO WHAT THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY SAW. AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOU SAW AT YOUR JUNE MEETING. MUCH LARGER BUILDING.

PARKING CONCERNS AND THEN THE REDUCTION OF THE SIZE AND PARKING AND MANEUVERABILITY ON THE SITE PLAN.

SO STAFF CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTION US HAVE.

AT THIS TIME THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ON THE LINE.

>> C. CRANE: WHAT ARE THOSE LITTLE DOTS DOWN THERE I GUESS WOULD BE THE SOUTH ON THE REGULAR MAP ORIENTATION BUT I

THINK MAYBE THE WEST. >> THIS AREA?

>> C. CRANE: THESE. >> WILL IF I CAN ZOOM IN THIS IS

FOUR AND SIX. >> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS?

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SO AS WE GO NORTH ON PROPRIETORS AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AS YOU SAID

[00:15:02]

IN YOUR PRESENTATION JUST BUILD IN VARIOUS POINTS WITHIN THE SETBACK, OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK, IS THE SETBACK ALWAYS CONSISTENT OR OES THE SETBACK START TO GET REDUCED AS WE GO NORTH ON

PROPRIETORS? >> THE SET BACK AT LEAST ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPRIETORS ROAD THE ENTIRE PROPORTION IS ZONED I1 WHICH IS THE RESTRICTED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

SO IT ALL AS THE SAME SETBACK THE 30 FEET FOR YEAR YARDS.

PARCEL, PARCEL BY PARCEL, ACH - DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY WERE BUILD COULD INCREASE 71 OR VARIANCES COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. A LOT OF THEM I COULD PULL UP THE AERIAL FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO 10 FEET TO 20 FEET TO

NEEDING 30 FEET. >> C. CRANE: MR. BROWN WOULD YOU

SWEAR THE APPLICANT, PLEASE. >> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH.

IF SO SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO MR. BROWN'S PRESENTATION? ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO HOW THINGS CHANGED OVER THE PAST

MONTH SINCE THE TABLE? >> I'LL THROW A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS IN. THE ONE THING MR. BROWN BROUGHT UP, I TRIED TO SEND ANOTHER SITE PLAN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWED DOTTED LINES THAT REPRESENTED THE TRUCK TURNING CLEARANCES.

FOR SOME REASON IT DIDN'T PRINT ON THIS ONE BUT YOU CAN SEE MY NOTES POINTING. THERE'S LIKE A 96-FOOT TURNING RADIUS IN THAT ONE WHICH AGAIN THE CLIENT HAD -- THE OWNER HAD SAID THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY HAVE DELIVERIES THAT USE THE BIG TRUCK TWICE A MONTH. THE IDEA OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ISLAND AREA SHOWED UNDOTTED BECAUSE THOSE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE ABLE TO BE USED AT ALL IMES.

SAME WITH A COUPLE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

THOSE SPOTS WOULD HAVE TO BE VACATED DURING A DELIVERY FROM A LARGE SEMI-TRUCK. AND WANTED ON THOSE PARTICULAR DAYS OF THE MONTH WE'D STILL HAVE PLENTY ROOM.

[00:21:49]

>> C. CRANE: THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE A PROBLEM FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> IT COULD BE. >> C. CRANE: BUT UNDER CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THIS BOARD IS CONCERNED.

>> RIGHT >> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT.

SO DO WE HAVE COMMENTS?. >> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT.

SO DO WE HAVE COMMENTS? >> THIS IS THE CONSTRUCTION.

>> C. CRANE: WHEN YOU ARE SWORN IN.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> C. CRANE: COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> I'M WALT DEMRY AT MACK CONSTRUCTION NEXT DOOR.

I HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT COMMENTS. ON PARKING, I'M LOOKING AT THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND IT CALLS FOR 58 SPACE FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING, 18 SPACES FOR THE NEW BUSINESS, 12 SPACES FOR THE NEW WAREHOUSE, A TOTAL OF 88 SPACES. THERE'S 71 PACES PROVIDED.

IN ADDITION IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEW OFFICES AND EXISTING OFFICE THERE'S AROUND 32 AREAS AROUND THOSE SPACES.

MY QUESTION IS HOW DID THE PARKING GO DOWN TO 58 SPACES.

>> I CAN ADDRESS THAT REAL QUICK.

INCLUDED BY THE APPLICANT ON THEIR SITE PLAN IS INCORRECT.

WHAT'S IN THE STAFF MEMO IS CORRECT.

THEY HAD THE WRONG CALCULATION FOR OFFICE.

IT'S 250, ONE SPACE FOR 250 AND MATERIALS 150.

THAT'S THE DISCREPANCY THERE. >> CALLER: OKAY.

SO SINCE 2008 THE PARKING HAS GONE FROM 150 TO 250?

[00:25:03]

>> I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY GOT THE 150 IN THEIR CALCULATIONS BUT IT'S 250 PER SQUARE FEET IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE.

I THINK THEY MADE A MISTAKE ON THEIR MATERIALS THEY SUBMITTED.

>> CALLER: OKAY. I'LL NOTE THEY MADE THE SAME MISTAKE WHEN THEY CALLED OUT 58 SPACES.

>> I HAVE NO IDEA. I DON'T THINK THE CODE HAS CHANGED BUT THE CODE REQUIRES 250.

>> CALLER: THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS.

THE OTHER CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S AN UNFINISHED PART OF THE WAREHOUSE, 75 FEET BY 50 FEET.

I'M ASSUMING THERE'LL BE AN OFFICE THERE THAT WILL NEED MORE PARKING. COULD BE A SECOND FLOOR THERE.

WHAT WOULD THE BOARD SUGGEST AS FAR AS THE --

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF FOR SOME REASON IN THE FUTURE THEY WOULD CHANGE ANY OF THE WAREHOUSE INTO THE OFFICE OR BUILD A SECOND STORY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME AND IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET COAT REQUIREMENTS THEY'D HAVE TO -- COME TO THE BOARD NORT MEETING REQUIREMENTS.

>> CALLER: THE OTHER THING I'D WANT TO MAKE SURE OF IS IF IT COMES BACK TO THE BOARD AND APPLY FOR A 10 FOOT VARIANCE THAT THIS WILL SET THE PRECEDENT.

>> THE BOARD LOOKS AT EACH THING ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT. THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACTS

AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. >> CALLER: OKAY.

MY LAST ISSUE IS THIS, THERE IS NO EASEMENT THAT I KNOW OF TO GET TO PROPRIETORS ROAD FROM MY BUI BUILDING AT 1028. MY CONCERN IS IF THE BOARD GRANTS THE VARIANCE, THAT WE WILL BE SUED FOR AN EASEMENT.

>> I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO TALK TO YOUR ATTORNEY AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY. WITH THIS DISCUSSION IT'S A CIVIL MATTER ONCE THEY GO FORWARD IF IT'S APPROVED THEY'LL GET ACCESS TO FOR CHANGING THAT ACCESS AND/OR ADDING UTILITIES THROUGH IT. THIS BOARD COULD APPROVE SOMETHING AND IT COULD STILL NOT BE DONE.

>> >> CALLER: I UNDERSTAND.

BUT ONCE THEY HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO BUILD IT WE BECOME

OBSTACLES. >> IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM LEGAL STANDING TO BUILD IT THEY CAN SHOVE IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE AND STILL HAVE THE SAME ISSUES IF THERE'S AN ACTUAL ISSUE WITH THAT EASEMENT THAT GIVES YOU ACCESS TO PROPRIETORS

ROAD. >> I'M VERY SKEPTICAL.

WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING FROM THE APPLICANT.

ZERO. IT'S BEEN A MONTH.

>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT.

I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR US AT LEAST.

>> ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

>> C. CRANE: DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE UESTIONS OR NO?MENTS FOR THE SPEAKER?- ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> CALLER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> C. CRANE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE APPLICATION, THEY'RE NOT SEEKING A PARKING VARIANCE, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THEY DO MEET CODE WITH THE

PARKING? >> CLERK: YES, MA'AM, THEY EXCEED AT THIS TIME. IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE

[00:30:01]

ANYTHING TO WAREHOUSE AND ADD OFFICE OR STORAGE UP THERE, WE WOULD REVIEW IT AT THAT TIME AND IF THEY'RE NOT MEETING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING WE WOULD THEN HAVE THEM COME BEFORE THIS BODY TO ASK TO DEVIATE FROM THAT REQUIREMENT AND THEN THE BOARD WILL PROBABLY HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS YOU HAD ADD THE JUNE MEETING AND I THINK STAFF WILL PROVIDE IMILAR CONCERNS.

WE CAN'T SPECULATE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AT THIS POINT IN

TIME. >> C. CRANE: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND THE OFFICE SPACE.

YOU SAID THEY'D HAVE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN AT THAT POINT PRESUMABLY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WOULD REQUIRE A

VARIANCE? >> CORRECT.

THE REVIEW IS IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WANTED TO MAKE BUILDING BY CONVERTING THE WAREHOUSE PORTION TO OFFICE AND/OR CREATING A SECOND FLOOR FOR OFFICE AND/OR STORAGE WE'D REVIEW THAT TO MAKE SURE IT MET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DOWN TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE. IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT THEY'D HAVE THE OPTION TO REVISE IT TO WHERE IT COULD MEET CODE OR THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO ASK TO DEVIATE ROM THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT.

>> >> C. CRANE:.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT?

>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOMEONE >> CALLER: YES, I'M FROM THE NE-

RAILWAY MUSEUM FROM COMMENT. >> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH.

IF SO SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

>> JOHN BERGMANN, B-E-R-G-M-A-N-N AT THE RAILROAD MUSEUM. I SPOKE AT THE LAST MEETING ALSO. I NOTICED THAT THE APPLICANT MAKE THEIR SUPPORTING STATEMENT AT ALL AND I REALIZE YOUR SAYING YOU'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ADDRESSING THE EASEMENT ISSUES BUT SOMETHING YOU'D WANT TO LOOK AT AT LEAST IN GRANTING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD AND I AGREE WITH WALT FROM MACK CONSTRUCTION YOU'RE SETTING A PRECEDENCE WHEN YOU GIVE THEM A HANDSHAKE TO DO THIS. I HEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT'S BETWEEN YOU AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT AND YOUR ATTORNEY.

WE'VE TALKED TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT AND THAT SAY FRUITLESS EFFORT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN COURT NOW.

THEY BASICALLY TOLD US TO POUND SAND.

THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY ALREADY THERE AND THEY DON'T CARE.

I NOTICED IN SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE GONE THROUGH AND RESEARCHED AND DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO RESEARCH BEFORE THE LAST MEETING BUT I HAVE SINCE AND I REALIZED THAT THE HEIGHT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE A ZONING VARIANCE DUE TO YOUR RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE SO WE WON'T EVEN ADDRESS THAT. BUT WHEN YOU YOU'RE CONSIDERING PARKING PLACES, IS PARKING PERMITTED -- IF YOU HAVE THE 30-FOOT SETBACK, THEY'RE REQUESTING A 30-FOOT SETBACK BE LOWERED TO 10 FEET ON THE AST SIDE BUT THERE'S A 30-FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE. IS PARKING NORMALLY PERMITTED IN THAT 30-FOOT SETBACK AS A MATTER OF RECORD WITHOUT A VARIANCE?

>> IT IS. >> C. CRANE: IT IS PERMITTED IN

THE 30-FOOT SETBACK PARK. >> OKAY.

SO THERE'S A 30-FOOT SETBACK ON OUR SIDE IT DOESN'T APPLY TO PARKING ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.

>> IT'S FOR THE STRUCTURES. >> OKAY.

JUST STRUCTURES. OKAY.

[00:35:17]

WE HAVE THE STORM WATER SITUATION AND YOU CAN GRANT THEM THE VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING BUT I HATE TO SEE A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD. I THINK THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BEFORE VARIANCES ARE GIVEN AND EVERYTHING.

THE EGRESS, INGRESS EASEMENT IS IN DISPUTE IF THE CASE IS DECIDED FOR THEM THEY HAVE INGRESS DISTRICT ATTORNEY -- INGRESS/EGRESS ON RECORD FOR UTILITIES.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT UNDER NUMBER 4 OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS IS WHETHER THE VARIANCE WOULD KNOW THE UTILITIES WOULD BE MODIFIED AS NEEDED AND WE SAID, WELL, YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING AN EASEMENT TO GET BACK THERE.

WHY IS THAT UESTION EVEN IN THERE IF IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE FOR THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE OR NOT?

WHY HAVE ALL THESE QUESTIONS? >> C. CRANE: I THINK THEY'RE APPLYING NOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK.

THEY WANT TO BUILD CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN NORMALLY ALLOWED. WOULD THE VARIANCE, IF GRANTED, AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES.

IT'S POSSIBLE SOME VARIANCES THAT APPLICANTS WOULD REQUEST WOULD AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES BUT E'RE ONLY CONSIDERING THE SETBACK, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, AND THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR STORM WATER AND THE PACKAGE TODAY, IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THE UTILITIES THROUGH THAT THEN THE PROJECT'S DEAD AT THAT POINT. THEY WOULD NOT ISSUE THE

PERMITS. >> CALLER: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS BUT TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO BUILD THE BUILDING AND THEN FIND OUT BECAUSE OF OTHER ISSUES THE BUILDING CAN'T BE BUILT, I WOULD THINK THERE'S A CART BEFORE THE HORSE HERE AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS FOR THE VARIANCE AND NOTHING WE CAN DO THAT FROM THE STORM WATER DRAIN.

>> IN TALKING WITH OUR SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY ENGINEER AND REVIEW THEY BELIEVE WITH THE RETENTION FOR WATER QUALITY AND QU QUANTITY WILL HELP HE ISSUES YOU'RE EXPERIENCING OR MACK CONSTRUCTION WILL BE EXPERIENCING. THEY THINK ADDITION WILL HELP

THE SITUATION. >> CALLER: YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF SURFACE RUNOFF AND FROM THE BUILDING AND YOU SAY ON-SITE RETENTION. I'M ASSUMING FROM MY KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOT SEEING RETENTION IT WILL HAVE TO BE SUBSTANTIAL UNDERGROUND RETENTION HOLDING FACILITY.

>> CORRECT. >> CALLER: ALL RIGHT.

I GUESS THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO OTHER THAN VOICE OUR DISPLEASURE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND HAVING TO LOOK AT IT WHICH IS NOT IN QUESTION. WITH THAT THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE ON THE RECORD SO IF SOMETHING HAPPENS LATER ON WE CAN'T SAY IT WASN'T ROUGHT UP

SOMEWHERE. >> C. CRANE: DO THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS SPEAKER?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> CALLER: THANK YOU.

>> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE? BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND IF NONE,

[00:40:04]

DO I HAVE A MOTION REGARDING CASE NUMBER BAZ 16-2020.

>> I'M THANKFUL TO STAFF NOR CLARIFICATION ON THE PARKING BECAUSE I NOTICED ONE PER 150 AND THE NUMBERS DIDN'T ALIGN SO I APPRECIATE EEING IT. I UNDERSTAND IT'S ON THE STAFF REPORT BUT SEEING IT ON THE SITE PLAN I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT. I PECIFICALLY REQUESTED LAST TIME AND LAST TIME MACK CONSTRUCTION RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE VEHICLES NEEDING TO GET INTO THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PROPERLY MANEUVER AROUND THE SITE AND THE DRAWING CLEARLY SHOWS THEY CAN MANEUVER ON THEIR OWN SITE WITHOUT HAVING TO GET INTO MACK CONSTRUCTION. I APPRECIATE THAT.

I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THANKS AGAIN TO STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE VARIOUS SETBACKS OR BUILDING LINES AS WE GO NORTH AND SOUTH ON PROPRIETORS ROAD. THE INCONSISTENCIES THERE WHETHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE 30-FOOT SETBACK.

>> C. CRANE: THANK YOU. DO YOU WITH HAVE ANY MOTION OR

MORE COMMENTS? >> HAVING SAID THAT, MADAME CHAIR I WILL MOVE THE REQUEST BY MICHAEL J. MAISTRSO FOR THE

REQUIRED PARKING. >> C. CRANE: YOU'RE MUTED.

>> IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LISTED AS PART OF THE MOTION.

>> OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD THEN WHAT I WILL DO IS START MY OTION OVER AGAIN.

I'LL MOVE THE REQUEST BY MICHAEL J. MAISTROS FOR THE VARIANCE AT THE SETBACK AT 1018 PROPRIETORS ROAD AT BAZ 16-2020 DRAWINGS BAZ 16-2020 BE UPHELD BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF STAFF MEMO AS PRESENTED IN THE MEETING.

>> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MR.

>> DJ FALCOSKI: I'LL RECUSE MYSELF.

[1. Variance – Front Yard Setback – Front Entry & Porch – 561 Park Overlook Dr. (Jeremy Little) BZA 18-2020]

OUR SECOND ITEM IS NEXT IS BAZ 18-2020 LOCATED AT 561 PARK OVERLOOK DRIVE. FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK AND FRONT ENTRY AND PORCH. THE APPLICANT IS JEREMY LITTLE.

>> I'M CITY STAFF. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS

[00:45:21]

PROPOSING -- HOLD ON. TECHNOLOGY.

>> LET'S MOVE ON WHILE IT'S STILL WORKING --

>> YOU'LL LOOK AT MY SCREEN. >> I BELIEVE WE'LL TRY THIS AS A TWO-MAN SHOW HERE. ALL RIGHT.

STARTING OVER. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A FRONT PORCH AND ENTRY FEATURE TO THE EXISTING DWELLING. THAT WOULD ENCROACH IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD. I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE MAY NOT HAVE PICTURES FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.

THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO ENHANCE THE LIVEABILITY AND AESTHETIC OF THE HOME WHILE NOT STRONG SACRIFICE INTERIOR. IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME. THE RELEVANT CODE SECTION IS 1149.01 STATING ANY DWELLING OR STRUCTURE ACCESSORY TO A DWELLING MUST BE AT LEAST 30 FEET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE PORCH TO BE 26.6 NCH MAKING THE VARIANCE SIX FEET, SIX INCHES.

THE CONCLUSIONS BY STAFF, THE LOT SIZE IS A BIT SMALLER THAN THAN REQUIRED FOR THE R10 DISTRICT.

A FEATURE SUCH AS FRONT PORCH CAN BE DDED TO THE LOT.

THIS MITIGATE THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

IN ADDITION STAFF BELIEVES THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED AS OTHER HOMES HAVE SIMILAR PORCHES AND IT WILL MATCH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE HOME.

IN ADDITION, IT'S KNOWN FOR ENCOURAGING FRONT PORCH STRUCTURES TO CONVEY A FRIENDLY, INVITING COMMUNITY.

STAFF SAID DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE VARIANCE. STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS ON THE CASE. >> C. CRANE: THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT?

>> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND >> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH.

IF SO SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE ANY ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE

PRESENTATION? >> I THINK THE PRESENTATION WAS GOOD. THANK YOU.

YOU'VE COVERED IT PRETTY WELL. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING TO ADD A FRONT ENTRY AND PORCH. THE EN CLOSED FRONT ENTRY COMPONENT WOULD WOULD NOT ENDROECH -- ENCROACH THE SETBACK. IT'S A SIMPLE ENTRY PIECE.

>> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE APPLICANT? HAVE WE RECEIVED COMMENTS BY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE?

>> WE HAVE NOT. >> C. CRANE: WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT. E-MAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN. AT THIS POINT I THINK WE WILL WAIT ABOUT A MINUTE, MINUTE AND A HALF TO SEE WHETHER WE GET ANY

[00:50:02]

CALLS.>> C. CRANE: HAVE WE RECE PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> NO. >> CHAIR M. COULTER: BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND IF NONE DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR BAZ 18-2020?

>> MADAME CHAIR I'LL MOVE TO ALLOW FOR A PORCH TO BE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT 561 PARK OVERLOOK DRIVE AS PER CASE BAZ 18-2020 DRAWINGS BAZ 18-2020 DATED MAY 18, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION IN THE STAFF MEMO AS PRINTED AT OUR MEETING. -- PRESENTED AT OUR MEETING.

>> SECOND. >> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECONDED.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

. >> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE NO.BAZ

[2. Variance – Garage – 5781 Indianola Ave. (Bret Gould) BZA 19-2020]

19-2020 LOCATED AT 5781 INDIANOLA AVENUE.

IT IS FOR A GARAGE AND THE APPLICANT IS BRET GOULD.

CAN WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.

>> YES, MADAME CHAIR, THE PROPERTY IS ALSO IN COLONIAL MILLS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL A 22-FOOT BY 24-FOOT TWO-CAR GARAGE AND IT APPEARS I'M HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AGAIN.

I'LL STOP SHARING MY SCREEN AND SEE IF MR. BROWN CAN TAKE OVER FOR ME WHILE I CONTINUE. SPEAKING ON THIS.

THE GARAGE IS 22-FEET BY 24-FOOT PROPOSED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IN THE REQUIRED YEAR YARD. THERE'S A SHED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION AND THE GREEN BOX YOU SEE THERE IS THE PROPOSED GARAGE THAT WILL TAKE OVER THAT SPACE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE NOR -- FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING ADDITIONAL STORAGE. THERE'S SURFACE PARKING BUT WANT SPACE. THE RELEVANT CODE IS 1149.08 SUBSECTION B STATING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 120 SQUARE FOOT MUST BE SETBACK EIGHT FEET FROM THE SIDE AND 10 FEET FROM THE REAR. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE GARAGE TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE REAR INSIDE PROPERTY LINES MAKING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FIVE FEET FOR THE SIDE YARD AND SEVEN

[00:55:01]

FEET FOR THE REAR YARD. SOME CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY STAFF, THERE IS AMATURE TREE IN THE REAR YARD.

THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO KEEP IT INTACT.

THE GARAGE WOULD ABUT THE TREE WITHOUT HARMING THE ROOTS AS STATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. IN ADDITION THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A CORNER WHICH LIMITS WHERE THE GARAGE STRUCTURE CAN BE BUILT IN CONFORMITY WITH CODE.

THE TWO FACTORS CAN MITIGATE THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE A GARAGE SO WITH THE INSTALL AFGS THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE, STAFF FEELS OTHER EQUIPMENT COULD BE STORED OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW AND FEELS THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THIS GARAGE.

IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THEM.

>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS IS THE SHED GOING TO GO COMPLETELY AWAY OR ARE THEY GOING TO RELOCATE IT ELSEWHERE

ON THE PROPERTY? >> THE SHED IS INTENDED TO GO COMP COMPLETELY AWAY.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER: --

>> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

IS THE PPLICANT HERE? >> WILL YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR

RIGHT HAND. >> APOLOGIZE NOT BEING ABLE TO SHARE VDEO, ON A GOVERNMENT COMPUTER.

>> I TRUST YOUR IGHT HAND IS RAISED.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD?

>> NO, SHE DID A GREAT JOB. I GOT MEET HER WHEN PICTURES

WERE TAKEN. >> C. CRANE: ANY COMMENTS OR

APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF?D FOR TH- >> NO QUESTIONS.

>> ME EITHER. >> C. CRANE: SORRY, MY MIC WAS MUTED. HAVE WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM

THE PUBLIC? >> NOT YET.

>> C. CRANE: WE'LL TAKE A SHORT PAUSE AND ALLOW PEOPLE A CHANCE TO CALL IN OR WRITE GIVEN THAT WE ARE ON A DELAY.

>> C. CRANE: HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THIS TIME?

>> NO, WE HAVE NOT. >> C. CRANE: I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK BACK WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS AS TO WHETHER YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS? IF NONE DO A MOTION FOR BAZ 19-2020.

[01:00:11]

>> MADAME CHAIR I REQUEST IT BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT 5781 INDIANOLA DRIVE PER CASE NO.BAZ 19-2020.

DATED MAY 29, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON FINDINGS AND FACTS FROM CONCLUSION AT STAFF MEMO AND PRESENTED.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN APPROVED, THANK YOU.

I APOLOGIZE. I KEEP APPARENTLY DOUBLE TURNING MY PAGES. I'LL HAVE TO MARK THESE.

HAVE YOU THEM STRAIGHTENED OUT TO WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER WAS.

I THINK IT WAS 19-2020. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE BAZ

[3. Variance – Front Yard Setback – Pond – 1105 Beechview Dr. (Alainna Greene) BZA 20-2020]

20-2020 LOCATED AT 1105 BEECH VIEW DRIVE REGARDING A HOLDING POND. THE PPLICANT IS ALAINNA GREEN.

>> THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO INGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 954 IN PERRY TOWNSHIP WITHOUT CURBING GUTTERS. DUE TO THE ANNEXATION THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A MIX OF CITY OF WORTHINGTON AND COLUMBUS AND PERRY TOWNSHIP. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS DUE TO A VIOLATION CASE WITH THE CITY AND RECOMMENDED AS A FORM OF REMEDIATION BY MAYOR'S COURT. THE POND IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY YOU SEE HERE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER STATED THEY INSTALLED THE POND FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETAINING WATER AND PREVENT FLOODING ON THEIR PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THEY STATED THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH HAS FLOODING IN THEIR PAVEMENT AND THIS HELP THEM AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS INSTALLED A TRENCH AND PIPE UNDER THE DRIVEWAY. I DID MANAGE TO GET A PICTURE YOU'LL SEE LATER OF THE DRAIN PIPE.

THEY STATED THE RETENTION POND IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL METHOD OF THE AFOREMENTIONED. THE SERVICE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SAID THERE'S NO AM -- APPLICABLE CODES THEY CAN ENFORCE MAKE IT SOLELY A ZONING MATTER.

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, HIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED WHEN IT WAS ALL PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP WITH LIMITED STORM WATER REGULATIONS AT THE TIME. THEY PLAN TO ADD AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE POND SUCH AS PLANT, TALL BUSHES, ROCKS, ALL ABUTTING THE EDGE OF THE POND. THE CODE SESSION TONIGHT RELEVANT TO HIS CASE STATES THAT MAN MADE LAKES OR PONDS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED EXCEPT AS PART OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THIS PROHIBITION ON LAKES AND PONDS SHALL NOT APPLY IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO BACK YARD PUSH PONDS OR DECORATIVE WATER FEATURES WITH A DEPTH OF 30 INCHES OR LESS AND SURFACE OF LESS THAN 75 SQUARE FEET AND LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE DWELLING OR STRUCTURE.

SO WITH THAT, THE REQUEST TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF AN EXISTING POND AND THE VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A POND OF THIS DEPTH AND SIZE.

SOME CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY STAFF, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LARGER THAN TYPICALLY SEEN IN THE R10 DISTRICT.

THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT IS 10,400 SQUARE FEET AND THIS PROPERTY RUNS ABOUT 58,300 SQUARE FEET.

IN ADDITION, THE POND IN THE PLACE SO SOLVE A PROBLEM AND

[01:05:03]

THERE'S BEEN OTHER METHODS AND THE APPLICANT STATES THIS SOLVES THE FACTOR AND THIS MAY MITIGATE THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. WITH THAT STAFF FEELS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALTERED NOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES BE AFFECTED AS LONG AS IT IS MAINTAINED.

IF THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANSWERS FOR YOU.

REGARD TO THE SMALL FISH PONDS, HOW DOES THIS VIEW IT?

>> TO THIS EXTEND IT'S THE SQUARE FOOT 50 FEET BY 50 FEET AND WHEN MOST FULL MAYBE SIX FEET DEEP AND EXCEEDS THE CODE LIMIT BY HREE AND A HALF, FOUR AND A HALF FEET OF DEPTH AND WITH 75 INCHES BEING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT IT EXCEEDS THAT AS WELL. THE CODE WAS FOR FISH PONDS AND COY PONDS AND NOT TO THIS EXTEND BUT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IT TO BE RETAINED TO HELP ALLEVIATE THE DRAINAGE IN THAT

AREA. >>

>> C. CRANE: WHAT IS THE CODE FOR POOLS AND FENCING?

>> WE HAD A QUESTION WITH THE DRAW DIRECTOR AND MAY SPEAK TO

THAT ISSUE. >> I MET WITH OUR LAW DIRECTOR TO GO OVER THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS THINK STAFF HAD AND BOARD MEMBERS HAD RELATED TO THE LIABILITY QUESTION.

WE DO REQUIRE FENCING AT LEAST FOUR FEET OF SENSE AROUND ANY POOLS. THERE'S NO EQUIREMENT SET FORTH FOR THIS AND THERE WOULD NO LIABILITY IN APPROVING THIS IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW OR 10 DAYS FROM NOW IF SOMETHING HAPPENED IT WOULD E ON THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES AND NO LIABILITY TO THE CITY OR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR APPROVING IT.

THE OTHER CONVERSATION WE HAD WAS RELATED TO THE CONDITION OF THE POND IF THERE WERE MOSQUITO ISSUES AND IF THERE ARE ISSUES OR CONCERNS TO THE MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF THE POND WE COULD INVOLVE COLUMBUS PLYMOUTH PUBLIC HEALTH TO REACH OUT.

THE ONE THING I'LL NOTE IN LOOKING AT THE PICTURES A LOT OF THE DEBRIS OR BLOCK ILL NEED TO BE CLEANED UP.

HOPEFULLY AS PART OF THEIR POND IN IMPROVEMENT, THEY'RE ABLE TO CLEAN IT UP. WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO CLARIFY HOW THAT PLANS TO BE IMPROVED AND WE HAD ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SERVICE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RELATED TO THE STORM WATER ISSUES AND ONCERNS THAT PLAGUE THE AREA. IT ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP AND THERE'S NOT GUTTER AND IT'S A HODGEPODGE OF THE CITY OF WORTHINGTON AND COLUMBUS, MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS. IN TALKING WITH THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT THEY DIDN'T FEEL IT WOULD EXACERBATE THE SITUATION.

I CAN ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> C. CRANE: THE LIABILITY IS ONE ISSUE.

THE GENERAL ISSUE IS SPACING. PEOPLE DON'T EXPECT A POND LIKE THIS TO BE LIKE THAT DEEP. IT COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE.

[01:10:07]

I DON'T THINK ANYONE WILL GO SWIMMING BUT MAYBE GO CREEKING LIKE THEY DO IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

I DO HAVE A CONCERN ON THE UNFENCED NATURE OF THE POND.

>> IT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD CAN DISCUSS AS PART OF OF THE REVIEW AND IF THE BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THE POND REMAINING WITH THE CAVEAT OF BEING FENCED OR SOME PROTECTION ADDED TO IT, I THINK WE NEED TO3 CONFER WITH THE APPLICANT OF THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT. I KNOW IN A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS IN MY PAST LIFE, YOU HAVE A LOT OF RETENTION PONDS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBDIVISIONS. IT'S NOT COMMON WITH WORTHINGTON AND BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

WITH THE PROPRIETORS ROAD, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE E.P.A. ON STORM WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY AND HOW THAT'S RELEASED. IN THIS SITUATION YOU HAVE A 70-YEAR-OLD SUBDIVISION, MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS.

IT'S KIND OF A HODGEPODGE THROUGHOUT THE REGION OF SOME JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE THEM TO BE FENCED AND NOT DON'T AND THERE'S A POND TO THE SOUTH BUT I BELIEVE IT'S FENCED ALSO.

THERE'S NOT AN EASE OF ACCESS TO GET TO THAT NEIGHBORING POND AS WELL. I THINK IN THE CITY WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF PONDS. YOU GET TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA THERE'S LARGER PONDS ASSOCIATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

LAKE VIEW PLAZA IS ONE EXAMPLE. FURTHER SOUTH ON HUNT LI ROAD YOU SEE RETENTION PONDS FOR STORM WATER CONTROL BUT COMMONPLACE IN CITY OF WORTHINGTON YOU WON'T FIND A LOT OF PONDS EXCEPT FOR FISH AND KOI PONDS.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER: OF

>> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING STAFF'S PRESENTATIONS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY ME.

>> FOR THE RECORD I'M JOSH GREENE, MARRIED TO ALAINNA GREEN AT 1105 BEECH VIEW DR. WE HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTING TO ELIMINATE THE SCARE OF SOMETHING HAPPENING.

WE HAD THAT AS WELL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE LIABILITY OF IT EITHER. AS FAR AS HOW DEEP IT THE TOP OF GRADE TO BOTTOM OF THE POND IS SIX FEET.

RIGHT NOW THERE'S TWO INCHES. AT THE DEEPEST IT'S PROBABLY NOT MORE THAN TWO FEEL. WE DIDN'T NOW HOW TO MEASURE IT AND WHEN WE TALKED TO THE CITY THEY DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS TOP OF GRADE OR WATER. THE WATER DOESN'T STAY.

EVEN WHEN IT'S TWO FEET DEEP THE NEXT MORNING IT'S PROBABLY SIX INCHES. LIKE STAFF STATED, THIS AREA IS KIND OF A HODGEPODGE OF EITHER CITIES OR BROKEN PIPES AND PRIVATE LINES AND PUBLIC LINES AND ALL CROSSING.

ALL COME THROUGH HERE. THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO HELP THE SWELLS YOU GET ABOUT SIX TIMES A YEAR.

WE'RE HOPING DURING THIS TIME, IT WILL HOLD THE WATER OVERNIGHT AND DISSIPATE. AS FAR AS THE POND MAINTENANCE WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER UNTIL APPROVED AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND MORE TIME ON IT IF IT HAD TO BE FILLED BACK IN. ONCE WE HAVE APPROVAL WE WILL CLEAN IT UP AND HAVE PLANS TO PLANT FLOWERS AND TREES AND BRUSH ND ALSO CLEAN UP A LOT OF THAT STONE AND DEBRIS THAT'S

DOWN THERE. >> MADAME CHAIR, I HAVE A

[01:15:12]

QUESTION FOUR. HAVE YOU A FENCE -- FOR YOU.

YOU HAVE A FENCE PERMIT? >> WE HAVE IT IN PLACE.

>> WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE IT? >> THREE WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS

AGO. >> WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE. WE ALREADY PUT IN A FENCE PERMIT. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FRONT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO SEE ONCE WE DO THE SIDES, OW FAR OUT IT COMES VISUALLY AND THEN EITHER ASK FOR A VARIANCE OR CONTINUE

IT ACROSS THE FRONT. >> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

>> IT HAS TO BE I THINK 40 FOOT BACK.

IT WILL GO RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE FRONT YARD AND THOUGHT THAT WOULD LOOK WEIRD SO WANTED TO DO THE SIDE FIRST TO GET A VISUAL AND THEN APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE OR CONTINUE ACROSS THE FRONT AT THE 40-FOOT SETBACK.

>> IT SHOULD BE A 30-FOOT SETBACK I BELIEVE.

>> THERE'S DISSENSION ABOUT THAT TOO A 30 FOOT SETBACK AND THERE'S AN EASEMENT SO BY THE TIME WE DO THE FENCE IT'D BE IN THE MCDONALD -- MIDDLE OF MY YARD.

WE HAD HE CITY PLANT TREES IN THE MIDDLE AND WE TRYING TO

INCORPORATE THAT. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE

PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. >> YES.

>> I GOT CONFUSED. WE MEASURED THE 30 FEET FROM THAT ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE SO 10 FEET IT SOUNDS IS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT, WE WOULD NEED YOU TO COME APPEALS TO ASK TO DEVIATE FROM -

THE SETBACK EQUIREMENT. >> I CAN ONLY HANDLE ONE BLUE SIGN AT A TIME. WE HAVE A HISTORY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. PEOPLE GET CONCERNED IF I DO TOO

MUCH AT ONE TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SORRY, MS. CRANE.

>> C. CRANE: DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTION OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU CAN E-MAIL OR YOU CAN CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN. HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS

FROM THE PUBLIC YET? >> MADAME CHAIR, I DO HAVE AN E-MAIL THAT WAS SENT THEY DON'T BELIEVE WAS EVER SENT ON TO THE

BORD OF ZONING APPEALS. >> FIRST, UNDERSTAND THE TOPOGRAPHY AND RAIN WATER AND IT FLOWS ON TO 1115 FROM THE PROPERTY NORTH AND ONE BEHIND THEM ON LIMERICKS ROAD AT HIGHER ELEVATIONS. AND THIS GOES TO THE YARD CURRENTLY THROUGH A 12-INCH PIPE AND POSSIBLY COMPROMISING THE CATCH BASIN. WATER ACCUMULATES FROM THE TWO PROPERTIES BEHIND GREENE AND LIMERICKS ROAD AT A HIGHER ELEVATION AND GREENS AND WATER FLOODS ON THE PROPERTY.

ALL THIS WATER HAS TO THEN FLOW FROM GREENS TO THE DRAINAGE THAT'S SOUTH OF GREENS WHICH RUNS ACROSS THE YEAR OF 5892 LIMERICK ROAD. THE PROPERTY TO THE CREEK.

HIS DRIVEWAY BORDERS THAT AREA. THE PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED HERE IS TO SUFFICIENTLY DIRECT HEAVY RAIN WATER FROM GEPHARDTS TO GREENS THOUGH GEPHARDTS IS NOT FLOODED.

IT'S NOT A ZONING ISSUE. THE CATCH BASIN IN QUESTION DOES NOT MEET CODE FOR LOCATION AND SIZE.

IT IS NOT A POND. IN THE DRY MONTHS OF SUMMER IT TURNS TO STAGNANT WATER AND MUD THEN DRIES OUT.

NUMBER TWO, AS STATED IN THE APPLICATION, EVEN WITH THIS CATCH BASIN, GEPHARDTS STILL GETS FLOODED SO THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED EVEN IF CATCH BASIN IS APPROVED.

WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS PLOTTED THE FRONT YARD OF THE GREEN WAS

[01:20:07]

A NATURAL CONDUIT FOR THE REFERENCE RAIN WATER TO RUN TO THE CREEK SOUTH OF 5892 LYNWOOD WHICH RUNS TO THE LAKE.

FOUR, A POND OR CATCH BASIN OF THE CODE COMPLIANT 80 SQUARE FEET IS ALL THAT WOULD BE NEEDED AT THE SOUTH END OF THE GREEN'S PROPERTY IF THE WATER FLOWING OUT COULD CONTINUE UNIMPEDED THROUGH HE DRAINAGE DITCH ACROSS THE PROPERTY TO THE CREEK. A FEW YEARS AGO THE DRAINAGE PIPES IN THE DITCH FROM THE CATCH BASIN AND BURIED IT TO HAVE RIDING MOWER ACCESS. THE PIPE IS NOT DEEP ENOUGH SO IT CREATED THE EXCESS RAIN WATER FROM THE PROPERTY.

THE DRAINAGE IS A FOOT HIGHER THAN GOING TO THE NORTH END OF THE POND. THIS COULD BE SOLVED BY REMOVING THE SHALLOW PIPE AND ADDING A SECOND PIPE NEXT TO IT OR LARGER PIPE GIVING EXCESS WATER OFF GREENE'S PROPERTY.

THE SOLUTION WHICH IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ZONING IS TO EFFECTIVELY GIVE THE HEAVILY-ACCUMULATED RAIN WATER FROM THE GEPHARDT'S TO THE GREENE'S TO THE CREEK.

IF THEY WANT TO HELP OR MANUAL LABOR I AM AVAILABLE.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER:

>> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS. DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I THINK WE ALLOWED A MINUTE AND A HALF WHILE READING THE LETTER. ONE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE POND OR CATCH BASIN OR WHATEVER IS ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE.

AND WHETHER THERE'S A BARRIER FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.

IF I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, DO I HAVE A

MOTION? >> MADAME CHAIR I MOVE THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR A POND TO REMAIN IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT 1105 BEECH VIEW DRIVE AS PER CASE BAZ 20-2020 DRAWINGS NO.BAZ 20-2020 DATED MAY 29, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF MEMO AND/OR PRESENTED AT THE MEETING.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECONDED.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> CLERK: MRS. CRANE. >> C. CRANE: NO.

IT'S BEEN APPROVED. THE NEXT ITEM IS CASE NO.BAZ 22-2020. LOCATED AT 587 FOX LANE.

[5. Variance – Rear Yard Setback – Shed – 587 Fox Lane. (John and Steffanie Haueisen) BZA 22-2020]

>> THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR. SO THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE R10 ZONING DISTRICT FOX LANE WITH 20 HOMES RUNNING ALONG IT.

[01:25:06]

THE REAR ABUT THE RIVER. THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU INSTALLED A 64-SQUARE FOOT SHED FOR STORAGE OF THEIR LAWN MOWER AND OTHER MATERIALS WITHOUT APPROVAL AND ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW IT WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SET BACK.

ON OCTOBER 15, 2019, STAFF RECEIVED A COMPLAINT REGARDING A SHED AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION THAT WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. STAFF PURSUED THE MATTER AND INFORMED THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF INSTALLATION OF THE SHED. THE - THE APPLICANT STATED THEY WERE UNAWARE THEY NEEDED IT FOR A SHED OF THAT SIZE. THEY MADE AN APPLICATION NOVEMBER 20, 2019 APPROVED NOVEMBER 25 THAT YEAR WITH THE INTENTION OF MOVING THE SHED IN THE SPRING TO APPROVE WITH THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION SHOWING THE SHED TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

CITY STAFF FOLLOWED UP WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ONCE THE CITY RE-OPENED FOR BUSINESS TO ABSTAIN A STATUS ON THE MOVING OF THE SHED. AND THEY APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE TO KEEP IT IN THE LOCATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE SHED IN ITS LOCATION AND HAVE CONTINUED SPACE FOR THEIR OUTDOOR STORAGE.

THE RELEVANT CODE SECTION IS 1149.08 SUBSECTION B OF THE WORTHINGTON ORDNANCES STATING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 120 SQUARE FEET OR LESS MUST BE SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD AND FIVE FEET FROM THE YEAR. THE REQUEST STO -- IS TO RETAIN THE SHED AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT MAKING THE VARIANCE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT BETWEEN 1 AND 1.7 FEET.

SOME CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY STAFF, THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A SLIGHT GRADE REDUCTION ON THE OPPOSING SIDE YARD GOING TOWARDS THE RIVER AND AS WELL AS THE REAR YARD IS THE OL TANGY RIVER LIMITING SPACE IN WHICH THE SHED CAN BE LOCATED IN THAT AREA.

THE SHED IS MINIMAL COMPARED TO OTHER SHEDS WE'VE SEEN IN THE DISTRICT. FACTORS CAN MID GAIT THE SUBSTANTIAL NATURE THEFT VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE CITY OF WORTHINGTON WAS GRANTED AN EASEMENT OF ACCESS ALONG THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND THE SHED CANNOT BE IN THAT EASEMENT OF ACCESS. SO FIRST RESPONDS COULD GET THROUGH. THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED AND PROVIDING THREE TO FOUR FEET WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE SHED AS NEEDED BETWEEN PROPERTY LINES AND STAFF WITH THE LOCATION AS IT STANDS BELIEVES GOVERNMENT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED WITH ITS RETENTION. THAT ONCLUDES STAFF COMMENTS.

WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> C. CRANE: THANK YOU. >> WE HAD A COMMUNICATION FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS STATING AND SHOWING PICTURES WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE SHEDS ON THE PROPERTY IS THERE PROBLEM WITH THE AMOUNT OF AREA OR NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE

PROPERTY? >> MADAME CHAIR, WE DID RECEIVE TWO LETTERS. ONE FROM A NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH AND ANOTHER E-MAIL FORWARDED TO THE BOARD FROM A DOCTOR.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THE REQUEST BEFORE THE, APPLICANT DOES NOT NEED -- LET ME BACK CITY CODE Y TO HAVE 850 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE. THE APPLICANTS HAVE AN EXISTING ONE-CAR GARAGE, A TWO-CAR CARPORT AND THE SHED AND I GUESS YOU COULD CALL THEM SHEDS OR STORAGE UNITS BUT THEY'RE MORE LIKE A RUBBERMAID CONTAINER BUT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE 850 SQUARE

[01:30:01]

FEET REQUIRED BY CODE. THEY'D BE UNDER THAT REQUIREMENT SO THE ONLY REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS JUST THE PLACEMENT ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE FOR THE DISTANCE OF A FOOT TO A FOOT AND A HALF FROM THE PROPERTY AND I CAN ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

>> C. CRANE: WAS CONFUSED WHERE THE SHED IS THE APPLICANT GAVE TWO DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS. ONE WHERE THE NEIGHBORS SAW IT AND ONE BASED ON A SURVEY. THEN NEIGHBORS TOOK A MEASUREMENT. I'M CONFUSED WHAT WE'RE BEING

ASKED FOR AS FAR AS A VARIANCE. >> WHAT WE'RE PROVIDED AND GOING WITH REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL THEIR STRUCTURE IS 1 FOOT O 1.7 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE IF THERE'S A DISCREPANCY WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS. WHEN WE WERE OUT YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE, MR. HAUEISEN WAS ABLE TO SHOW US WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED AND THEY WERE A COUPLE INCHES APART.

THEY HAVE A THREE-FEET SETBACK AS THE BOARD HELD AS THE MINIMUM WHETHER A LARGER GARAGE OR SHED IT EXCEEDS THAT.

THEY MAY BE OFF A COUPLE INCHES JUST TO THE DISCREPANCIES AND THAT'S BETWEEN THE HAUEISEN AND NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH TO CLARIFY AND WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR ISSUE THE CITY WOULD NOT GET INVOLVED. RELATED TO THE COUPLE INCHES DISCREPANCY WOULD NOT IMPACT OUR APPROVAL FROM THAT AND THE BOARD HELD THE THREE FEET WHEN MINIMUM WHEN NEEDED SO THEY'D EXCEED

THAT COMPONENT OF IT. >> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM STAFF OR THE BOARD?

WILL YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT? >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> I BELIEVE YOU'RE MUTED. >> THERE SHOULD BE A MICROPHONE.

I BELIEVE THERE'S AN IPAD. >> I'LL SEND THE CALL IN NUMBER SO YOU CAN CALL IN ND WE'LL HAVE YOU COME IN THAT WAY.

>> I WONDER IF ANYONE ELSE IS ON THE MAC BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT

HAPPENED TO ME. >> I THINK THAT WAS JUST YOU.

I WILL PATCH YOU IN SO YOU CAN SEE US ON THE SCREEN.

>> C. CRANE: DO YOU SEE THE APPLICANTS?

>> YES, THEY'RE ON MY SCREEN. WE'LL SEE IF THEY CAN CALL IN.

[01:35:12]

>> C. CRANE: DID YOU SAY YOU HAD A LETTER FROM --

>> I THINK WE HAVE THEM NOW. WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT CALLED IN.

PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. HIT STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

I CAN HEAR YOU. >> CALLER: OH, GOOD.

>> C. CRANE: YOU GOT FEEDBACK. >> CALLER: CAN YOU HEAR US?

>> C. CRANE: YES BUT WE HAVE FEEDBACK.

>> CALLER: THE COMPUTER IS MUTE THE BUT THE PHONE IS NOT.

>> C. CRANE: IT SOUNDS LIKE N ECHO CHAMBER BUT WE'LL TRY TO

GET BY. >> WE'LL GET THROUGH IT.

>> C. CRANE: SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO STAFF'S

PRESENTATION? >> CALLER: NOT OFFHAND UNLESS

HAVE YOU QUESTIONS. >> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? I'M ASKING WHY YOU PUT THE SHED SO FAR FROM THE PROPERTY. IT SEEMS IT'S AS FAR AS IT CAN BE FROM THE PROPERTY AND DOESN'T SEEM CONVENIENT.

>> >> CALLER: IT WAS CONVENIENT FOR HAVING THE LAWN MOWER BACK THERE WHERE WE DO MOST THE MOWING AND WE'RE ALSO TAKING CARE OF THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.

>> C. CRANE: SO YOU START YOUR MOWING IN THE BACK?

>> CALLER: IT WAS A CONVENIENT PLACE TO PLACE THE MOWER BECAUSE THE GARAGE IS FULL. IT'S SMALL BUT BIG ENOUGH FOR A MOWER AND A FEW ATTACHMENT AND THINGS.

>> CALLER: THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD >> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FO FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT. I'LL REPEAT THEM ONCE MORE.

YOU CAN E-MAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN.

DO WE HAVE COMMENTS. >> MS. CRANE, THIS IS LEE.

I HAVE TWO THINGS TO READ INTO THE RECORD AND I COPIED APPLICANTS SO THEY KNOW WE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS.

AS MENTIONED THE FIRST E-MAIL IS FROM DR. CHOZE MEMBERS OF THE BAZ I'D LIKE TO SAY SEVERAL THINGS IN REGARDS TO THE CASE THOUGH TECHNICALLY MAY NOT BE PROPER TO MENTION THE ORIGINAL SITUATION AND DIFFICULT TO IGNORE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

THE BAZ FAILED TO DIVIDE THE LOT RESULTING IN A HIGH WALL BEING BUILT AND A REALIZE THE CORRECTION WASN'T MADE EARLIER ENOUGH ALLOWING THE FOUNDATION OF THE WALL TO BE BUILT.

THERE'S BEEN TIT FOR TAT BETWEEN THE EIGHBORS BUT THE BOTTOM

[01:40:07]

LINE IS THEY HAUEISEN SHOULD MOVE THE SHED NOT UP AGAINST THE SOUTH AND IT'S UNREASONABLE AND LUDICROUS.

I ASK THE VARIANCE BE ALLOWED. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION. THAT WAS E-MAILED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND APPLICANT. THE OTHER ITEM WE DID RECEIVE TWO DAYS AGO THAT WENT OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND COPIED TO THE APPLICANT, FROM TOM AND DEBBIE COMER AT 599 FOX LANE TWO DOORS NORTH OF THE HAUEISEN. WE'RE RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE IMPROPERLY LOCATION OF AN ORIGINALLY UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE BUILT SEPTEMBER 2019 AND 587 FOX LANE.

AS NEIGHBORS WE ALWAYS APPRECIATED THE WORK OF THE BAZ KEEPING QUALITY IN OUR CITY. AS NEIGHBORS OF THE HAUEISENS WE ALL SHARE THE RIVER VIEW FROM OUR HOMES AND PATIOS AND THIS INCLUDED ATTACHED PHOTOS THAT WENT OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THE BACKDROP OF OUR LOTS IS FILLED WITH LARGE EAUTIFUL TREES NOT SHEDS. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.HE CHARACTER O- EVERYONE ON THE RIVER SPENDS THEIR TIME IN THE BACK YARDS SO IT'S RELEVANT TO SAY THE SHED NOT NOTICE FROM THE STREET.

THEY USE AS DEFENSE THEY CLEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THEIR YARD TO ENHANCE THE VIEWS FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND APPRECIATE THE CLEARING OF THE UNSIGHTLY WOOD PILES BUT IF THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS' VIEW THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PLACED THE WOOD PILES FOR THE SHED AND IF NOT FOR RETALIATION THEY WOULD HAVE PLACED IT NEXT TO THE HOUSE AND LOT VACANT OVER 12 YEARS.

THIS NEW SHED MAKES A TOTAL OF SIX SHEDS ON THE HAUEISEN'S PROPERTY ALL NOTICEABLE EYESORE TO NEIGHBORS AND ANYONE PASSING BUY. THERE'S FOUR BARRELS LINING THE HOUSE. WE QUESTIONED THE NEED FOR TWO PEOPLE NEEDING THIS EXCESSIVE STORAGE PLUS A GARAGE AND CARPORT. THE CITY OF WORTHINGTON SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS UNKEPT, UNSAFE HOME FOR VARMINTS IN THE CITY AND THE PEOPLE WHO CAUSED SO MUCH STRIFE WITH A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT IS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE AND THE SHED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AFTER LEGALLY FIGHTING THEIR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO MOVE THEIR HOME 18 INCHES THOUGH THE NEW HOME WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED BY THE ITY AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND THE SHED NEEDS TO BE LOCATED CORRECTLY FROM MR. AND MRS. COMER AT 599

FOX LANE. >> CHAIR M. COULTER: I -

>> C. CRANE: I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE ERTD -- LETTER.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE BAZ THAT HAD TO DO WITH SPLITTING

THE LOT. >> MADAME CHAIR, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT CAME BEFORE YOU WAS A REQUEST TO BUILD ON THE LOT AND THE BOARD APPROVED A -- IT'S A BLUR NOW AND I'M P PARAPHRASING AND THE HAUEISENS BELIEVED IT WAS EIGHT FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND WHERE THE DISCREPANCY STARTED AND.

IT WENT FROM THERE. >> C. CRANE: IT DOESN'T HAVE

BEARING ON THE EQUEST TODAY. >> I THINK HE WAS JUST WANTING

TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. >> C. CRANE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR PEOPLE WAITING TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE LAST LETTER THAT YOU READ WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH BEING VACANT 12 YEARS?

>> YES. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE HAUEISENS, THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS FOX LANE AND THE PROPERTY LINE GOES THROUGH HERE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF TALKING TO THEM THE NEIGHBOR PASSED AWAY 12 OR 13 YEARS AGO AND IN AN

[01:45:05]

ESTATE WITH THE KIDS TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE HOUSE IN THE FUTURE AND THE HAUEISEN'S HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING ND MOWING THE YARD AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE'S NO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUES WE KNOW OF WITH THE HOUSE.

SO IT'S NOT VACANT BUT IT'S NOT ABANDONED.

SOMEONE OWNS IT AND PAYING PROPERTY TAXES AND THINGS ALONG THAT LINE. BUT THIS IS THE HOUSE

REFERENCED. >> GOT IT.

>> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND IF NOT DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR BAZ 22-2020.

>> I'LL MOVE THE EQUEST BY JOHN AND STEPHANIE HAUEISEN FOR A VARIOUS FROM CODE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR A SHED TO BE IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AT 587 FOX LANE AS PER CASE BAZ 22-2020 DRAWINGS NUMBER BAZ 22-2020 DATED JUNE 5, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF MEMO AS PRESENTED IN OUR MEETING.

>> SECOND. >> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECONDED.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

. >> MR. SITZ.

>> B. SEITZ: NO. >> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

[6. Variance – Extension of a Nonconforming Use – House Addition and Garage 159 E. Granville Rd. (RAS Construction/Rekos) BZA 24-2020]

OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE BAZ 24-2020, LOCATED AT 159 EAST GRANVILLE ROAD. EXTENSION OF A NON CONFORMING USE. FOR A HOUSE ADDITION AND GARAGE AND THE APPLICANTS ARE RAS CONSTRUCTION/REKOS.

>> THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE R10 DISTRICT ALONG REGIONAL THOROUGHFARE ROUTE 161.

THE DWELLING IS A DUPLEX BUILT IN 1921.

THE PROPERTY IS ALSO SUBJECT TO IN THE APPROVED PLANS APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD JUNE 11 THIS YEAR.

APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A SECOND GARAGE.

BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE HOUSES WO DWELLING UNITS IT WOULD NEED APPROVAL TO EXTEND THE USE BY CONSTRUCTING THE ADDITION.

SO FOR THE CODE SECTION ON THIS MATTER, THE BOARD SHALL HAVE AN AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF A BUILDING OR EXPANSION OF A USE OF A LOT FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE.

AS THE LOT IN QUESTION ON THE DATE SUCH BUILDING OR USE BECAME NONCONFORMING AND WHERE SUCH EXTENSION IS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE EXISTING USE OF SUCH BUILDING OR LOT.

SO THE REQUEST WITH THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PROPHYLFROM THE BOARD OF -- APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WITH THE EXTENSION.

THE BUILDING CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY STAFF STATING THE BUILDING CONTINUED TO BE USED AS A AND - MULTIFAMILY DWELLING IN ITS USE.

THE CONTINUATION OF THE USE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES SUFFER A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT AS A RESULT OF GRANTING THE EXTENSION AS IT HASN'T BEEN IN PLACE SO MANY YEARS. IN ADDITION, STAFF FEELS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT E SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED NOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES AFFECTED AS IT'S EXTENDING O THE REAR PROPERTY. THAT SUMS UP OUR REQUEST.

WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON THE MATTER.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER: THANK YOU. --

[01:50:03]

>> C. CRANE: THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

PLEASE SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND

IF YOU ARE PRESENT. >> YES, I'M HERE.

>> GREAT. >> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH.

IF SO SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS GREG RKOS, 159 EAST GRANVILLE ROAD.

>> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE

PRESENTATION? >> CALLER: NO, GREAT

PRESENTATION. >> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS IF YOU ARE HEAR TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ISSUE, YOU CAN E-MAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN.

HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS SO FAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON HIS

PROJECT? >> NO, MA'AM, WE HAVE NOT.

>> C. CRANE: WE'LL PAUSE FOR A MINUTE R SO WHILE WE LET THE RECORDING CATCH UP AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO CALL IN.

>> C. CRANE: HAVE WE RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> NO, WE HAVE NOT. >> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR BAZ 24-2020. CONSTRUCTION GRANT PERMISSION FOR THE ADDITION ON 159 EAST GRANVILLE ROAD AS PER CASE BAZ 24-2020, DRAWINGS BAZ 24-2020 BE APPROVED BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF MEMO AS PRESENTED IN OUR MEETING.

>> SECOND. CP

>> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[01:55:21]

>> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN APPROVED. OUR NEXT ITEM OF PUBLIC HEARING

[7. Variance – Fence – Supporting Members – 243 W. New England Rd. (Mike Miller & Meredith Baron) BZA 25-2020]

IS BAZ CASE 25-2020 LOCATED AT 243 WEST NEW ENGLAND AVENUE.

THIS IS FOR A FENCE FOR SUPPORTING MEMBERS AND THE APPLICANTS ARE MIKE MILLER AND MEREDITH BARON.

>> THANK YOU, MACHDAME CHAIR. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE R10 ZONING DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MOVE THEIR EXISTING FENCE ON THE PROPERTY AND INSTALL A NEW SIX-FOOT PRIVACY SENSE -- FENCE TO ENCLOSE THE BACK YARD OF THE HOUSE. WE RECEIVED CORE SPENDENCE FROM THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST SAYING THEY WOULD NOT LIKE THE EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED.

IT WAS KNOWN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER IT IS A SHARED FENCE.

THE APPLICANT SAID THE ONLY SOLUTION IS BY BUILDING ON THE EXISTING FENCE YOU SEE HERE. THIS WOULD RESULT IN HAVING THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE, NICE SIDE OF THE FACE FENCING INWARD ON ONLY THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REMAINING SIDE OF THE YARD WILL HAVE THE SUPPORTING MEMBERS FACING INWARD AS INTENDED.

CODE SECTION RELEVANT TO THIS CASE IS SECTION 1180.02 SUBSECTION SUPPORTING EMBERS FOR WALLS OR FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO AS TO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM ANY OTHER PROPERTY WHICH ADJOINS THE FENCE OR WALL. THE REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH THE SUPPORTING MEMBERS FACING OUTWARD SO TOWARDS THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR. STAFF CONCLUDES THE PROPOSED FENCE WILL HAVE A LOOK THAT RESEMBLES SUPPORTING MEMBERS.

THERE WAS A SLIDE EARLIER SHOWING EXAMPLES WHAT THE FENCE MAY LOOK LIKE. IT RESEMBLES SUPPORTING MEMBERS FACING INWARD AS INTENDED. ALSO, THE FENCE WILL NOT BE SEEN WELL IF AT ALL FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS IT WILL RUN ALONG THE REAR YARD AS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN.

THE FACTORS MAY MITIGATE THE SUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY BE ALTERED AS IT'S NOT COMMON TO HAVE SUPPORTING MEMBERS FACE OUT WARD IN THE COMMUNITY.

STAFF FEELS THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE AFFECT WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE.

I KNOW WE RECEIVED A COUPLE LETTERS I BELIEVE MR. BROWN WILL READ AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME BUT CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU

HAVE. >> CHAIR M. COULTER: ONE OF THE

>> C. CRANE: UP WITH OF THE ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE TO MOVE IT CONSTRUCTION CO -- COULD GO ON BETWEEN THE OTHER SIDE AND HOW MUCH ALLEY WOULD THERE NEED TO BE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE EXPLORED BEFORE. CERTAINLY ENOUGH ROOM TO MAINTAIN THE AREA WITH A LAWN MOWER.

I'M CURIOUS TO WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SAY.

THERE'S A WALKWAY BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND PROPERTY LINETHEHOUSEE SEE I KNOW THEY INTEND TO VIT AGAINST THE EXISTING FENCE -- HAVE IT AGAINST THE EXISTING FENCE THEY THINK WILL NOT AFFECT SHRUBBERY OR HAVE ANYTHING MAINTAINED.

I MAY HAVE THEM SPEAK TO THAT QUESTION.

>> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM STAFF?

>> I THOUGHT I READ THERE'S ONLY THREE SECTIONS THAT HAVE TO

REMAIN. >> I'M NOT SURE I HAVE A PHOTO

[02:00:09]

OF THAT SIDE. THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID THEY'LL KEEP A PORTION ON THE LEFT SECTION OF THE YARD.

AGAIN, IT MAY HAVE BEEN MISCONSTRUED IN MY THOUGHTS AS WELL BUT I KNOW MORE TOWARDS THE DWELLING THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SIX-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND I BELIEVE THE REAR ECTIONS OF THAT FENCE TOWARDS THE REAR PROPERTY IS NOT ON THE -- IT IS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE IT WITHOUT NEEDING CONTENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE. SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE

FENCE BEING SHARED. >> LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DECIPHER

THIS. >> YEAH, BREAK IT DOWN.

>> C. CRANE: IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> CALLER: WE'RE HEAR. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> I DO. >> AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD. >> I'M MEREDITH BARON, 243 WEST

NEW ENGLAND ROAD. >> AND MIKE MILLER 243 WEST NEW

ENGLAND ROAD. >> PLEASE BRING LIGHT TO THE

QUESTION OF MR. SEITZ. >> BASICALLY, IN THIS VIEW ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE JUST THE PORTION IN BLUE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE LOWER HALF IS ON OUR PROPERTY AND THE UPPER HALF IS ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SIT ON THE LINE.

WE PROPOSE PROPORTION OF THE FENCE THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE PRIVACY FENCE.

SHE SAID WE CAN MOVE WHATEVER'S ON OUR LINE OR OUR PROPERTY.

WE ARE ASKING TO REVERSE THE PRIVACY FENCE TO BE BUILT NEXT TO HER FENCE. IT'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE WHAT'S ON THE LINE.

>> SO THE PORTION YOU ARE REQUESTING THE REVERSE YOU GET THE VARIANCE FOR WOULD JUST BE THOSE SECTIONS THAT WHERE HER

FENCE WOULD REMAIN? >> IT WOULD BE THE WHOLE SIDE SO IT ALL MATCHES. SHE WILL NOT LET US REMOVE THE FENCE ON HER PROPERTY SO THAT'S GOING INTERFERE WITH UILDING THE FENCE WITH THE SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE

FENCE FROM THE OUTSIDE, FROM THE >> C. CRANE: IS THERE ANOTHER STIFLE FENCE THEY COULD -- STYLE OF FENCE THEY COULD BUILD FROM

YOUR SIDE? >> CALLER: E'RE NOT AWARE ONE YOU CAN ONLY BUILD FROM OUR IDE BECAUSE IT WOULD FACE OUTWARD SO

WE'D HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE. >> CALLER: THEY HAVE TO BUILD FROM THE OTHER SIDE. WE ORIGINALLY WERE INTENDING TO BUILD A DIFFERENT STYLE OF FENCE.

[02:05:02]

TO HELP MAKE IT LESS NOTICEABLE WE CHANGED TO A HORIZONTAL SLAT WHICH USED TO BE IN THE PICTURES --

>> CALLER: BECAUSE IT LOOKED SIMILAR ON BOTH SIDES.

SO WE CHANGED THE STYLE OF FENCE TO ONE THAT LOOKED SIMILAR ON BOTH SIDES SO IT WOULDN'T LOOK LIKE THE WRONG SIDE FACING OUTWARDS. I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT

TERMINOLOGY. >> C. CRANE: I DON'T KNOW IT EITHER. WE KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

>> CALLER: THE STYLE OF FENCE WOULD LOOK THE SAME ON BOTH SIDES. WE ORIGINALLY HAD A PERMIT.

THE HEIGHT REMAINS THE SAME BUT THE STYLE IS DIFFERENT BUT WHEN FENCE BUILDERS BUILD THEY HAVE TO BUILD FROM THE NICE SIDE BECAUSE THAT'S THE SIDE THEY GO ON.

WITHOUT GOING IN HER YARD WE AN- CAN'T BUILD THE FENCE AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO STEP HORN GARDEN.

-- HER GARDEN. >> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN. THE ONLY PLACE WE WOULD SEE THE DOUBLED UP FENCE IS THE BOTTOM SECTION AT THE SOUTH END, RIGHT?

>> CALLER: THE ENTIRE BLUE WOULD BE TURNED AROUND AND BUILT FROM INSIDE OUR YARD INSTEAD OF THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.

IT WILL BE DOUBLED UP WHERE HER FENCE WILL REMAIN.

>> WHERE SHE WON'T ALLOW YOU TO TEAR IT DOWN.

>> THE TOP OF THE BLUE LINE. >> THANK YOU FOR THE

CLARIFICATION. >> MR. SEITZ, I WILL ADD AND CAN READ THE NEIGHBOR'S LETTER IN A SECOND.

AS I MENTIONED, THIS WHOLE QUADRANT SO THE NEIGHBOR WOULD SEE IT BUT LESS VIB FROM THE ROADWAY AND -- VISIBLE FROM THE

ROADWAY AND FROM THIS AREA. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE PHOTO IS THE EXAMPLE. THERE'S QUITE A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL. APPLICANT IF THAT'S THE INTENT

TO WHAT WILL BE BUILT. >> CALLER: SO THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS THE MOST ACCURATE REPRESENTATION THIS ONE WITH THE

GREEN GRASS. >> THAT WOULD BE FACING YOUR

PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE. >> CALLER: CORRECT.

>> THE NEXT PHOTO THERE'S QUITE A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE VERTICAL

AND HORIZONTAL. >> CALLER: I TRIED TO FIND A BETTER PICTURE ONLINE. THIS IS F SOMEONE'S STYLE AND THE YARD WAS NOT HELPING THE CASE BUT I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING ELSE. THEY PAINTED THE BOARDS BROWN.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THEM THE NATURAL TREATED WOOD COLOR LIKE ALL THE HORIZONTAL SLATS.

>> THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU IF IT WAS ALL THE SAME COLOR AND NOT TWO DIFFERENT COLORS.

>> MR. SEITZ, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEFT OF THE PICTURE IN THE REAR THE ONE ON THE CORNER MATCHES LEFT TO RIGHT.

>> IT'S AN INTERESTING. -- IT'S INTERESTING.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW.

>> THE QUESTION I HAVE IF YOU BUILD THE FENCE IS EVERYTHING GOING TO BE HORIZONTAL OR THAT JUST SIDE?

>> CALLER: EVERYTHING. >> RIGHT ANSWER.

>> CHAIR M. COULTER: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD

MEMBERS? >> NO.

[02:10:02]

>> C. CRANE: ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT, THEY ARE THROUGH E-MAIL OR CALLING THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN. WE HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS TO BE

READ INTO THE RECORD. >> WE RECEIVED ONE E-MAIL FROM THE LETTER. THE ONE REFERENCED EARLIER TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY THAT STATES AND THIS WAS E-MAILED TO THE BOARD AND APPLICANT EARLIER. THESE COMMENTS REGARD THE REQUEST OR A ZONING VARIANCE OF A PRIVACY FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 243 NEW ENGLAND AVENUE.

PROPOSES THE WEST FENCE WALL BE BUILT INSIDE-OUT WITH ITS EXPOSED SUPPORTS FACING THE SIDEWALK AND STREET.

THIS MEANS OVER 50 FEET OF INSIDE-OUT FENCE WILL BE SEEN BY STROLLING PASSER-BYES AND ANYONE DRIVING BY OR NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. IN ADDITION TO THAT IN QUOTES, THE NOT NICE SIDE AS REFERENCED BY THE APPLICANT WILL BE IN PLAIN VIEW OF MY DINING ROOM, KITCHEN AND WINDOWS LOCATED 23 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED FENCE. IN SUMMER FOLIAGE FROM SHRUBBERY WILL COVER THE NOT NICE SIDE AND NOTHING IN THE WINTER OR BRING AND HAVE THREE SOLUTIONS. REMOVE THE PLANT IN THE GAP BY USING A CHEMICAL WEED KILLER LIKE ROUNDUP OR WEED WHACKER.

COVER THE EXPOSED AREA WITH BLACK PLASTIC TO DISCOURAGE WEED GROWTH OR TOP WITH MULCH, GRAVEL OR WOOD CHIPS, ETCETERA.

THIS WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO A WEED-FREE GAP TO CONSTRUCT A NICE NSIDE-OUT FENCE AND ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EYESORE. FOR THAT REASON I OBJECT TO THE VARIANCE AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE WORTHINGTON STANDARDS. IF QUESTIONS ARISE SHE CAN BE REACHED AT HER NUMBER. I CAN READ THAT IF YOU WANT.

TA WAS FROM PAT RANDOLPH. >> C. CRANE: THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR NOT ALLOWING THE FENCE TO BE TAKEN DOWN ON HER

PROPERTY? >> C. CRANE: DID YOU APPROACH HER ABOUT TAKING DOWN THE FENCE AND PUTTING IT BACK UP IF SHE

WANTS TO KEEP HER FENCE? >> CALLER: REPLACING HER FENCE

THE SAME WAY IT IS? >> C. CRANE: YEAH, USING THE

SAME MATERIALS. >> CALLER: WE ASSUMED WHEN SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T WANT HER FENCE DOWN SHE MEANT EVER.

>> CALLER: IT'S AN OLD POST AND RAIL FENCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WOULD ALLOW US TO

>> C. CRANE: IF YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF THAT MAYBE SHE HASN'T EITHER. TAKING DOWN THE FENCE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PERMANENT. YOU CAN TAKE IT DOWN SO THE BUILDERS COULD CONSTRUCT THE FENCE AND THEY'RE FENCE BUILDERS SO TAKE IT DOWN AND PUT IT BACK UP, PRESUMABLY.

SHE SEEMS TO LIKE THE FENCE. I KIND OF UNDERSTAND.

IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT LOOK FOR HER TO HAVE A SIX-FOOT TALL OPAQUE FENCE RATHER THAN THE OPEN LOW LOOK BUT THEY UNDERSTAND DOESN'T MEET YOUR NEEDS.

IT'S OMETHING YOU PERHAPS WANT TO TALK TO HER ABOUT.

[02:15:06]

IT'S KIND OF SIGNIFICANT FOR S TO APPROVE A FENCE TURNED INSIDE-OUT LIKE THAT. WHILE IT'S PROBABLY NOT A FENCE WHERE WHITE IS VISUALLY DIFFERENT AS SOME ENCES MOST FENCES YOU CAN TELL WHAT'S THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.

UNTIL YOU SEE IT I'M NOT SURE A PICTURE IS ACCURATE TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN TALK

TO HER ABOUT? >> CALLER: WE CAN TRY.

>> C. CRANE: CAN YOU LOOK INTO THAT POSSIBILITY?

>> CALLER: IF THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION.

>> C. CRANE: I'D PERSONALLY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH YOU TRYING THAT. THAT WOULD BE MY FEELING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE TO SAY

ABOUT IT. >> CALLER: WE WOULD OFFER TO HAVE HER FENCE TAKEN DOWN AND PUT BACK UP.

SO IF HE DOESN'T LIKE HOW IT'S PUT BACK UP DOES THAT FALL BACK

ON US IN SOME WAY? >> CALLER: WE DON'T WANT TO GET

INTO A LEGAL BATTLE. >> CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? YOU CAN CRAFT IT THE WAY YOU'RE ASKING FOR NOW THAT WOULD BE NE OPTION AND THEN HE SECOND OPTION TO MS. CRANE'S POINT IS TO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBOR AND ASK IF HER FENCE COULD BE TAKEN DOWN LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUR NEW FENCE CONSTRUCTED AND THEN HER FENCE PUT BACK TOGETHER. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO WORK AROUND. WE CAN GO FOR A VOTE AND GET IT

OFF THE AGENDA. >> CALLER: SO IF WE GO WITH OPTION NUMBER WO AND SHE SAYS NO, SO FAR EVERYTHING WE'VE ASKED SHE'S SAID NO TO. IF WE ASK HER AND SHE SAYS NO --

>> MY SUGGESTION IS WE REVIEW A POSSIBLE APPROVAL THE WAY YOU'RE SUGGESTING DOING IT TONIGHT.

>> ARE YOU THERE, CINDY? >> C. CRANE: IT'S GONE NOW.

THERE WAS STATIC OR INTERFERENCE.

WAS SOMEONE TRYING TO TALK? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO AT LEAST

ON OUR END. >> I HEARD THE HELICOPTER FLYING

OVER AS WELL. >> C. CRANE: WAS THAT IT?

>> NOT SURE BUT THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE.

>> CALLER: I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE TO RESCUE A SPLIT-RAIL FENCE BUT I ALSO THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF UNDUE COST THAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING ON THIS HOME OWNER TO DE CONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT A FENCE FOR A NEIGHBOR THAT WE CAN CLEARLY TELL THEY'VE REACHED OUT AND TRIED TO BE NEIGHBORLY WITH.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT CRAFTS BOTH WAYS AS MR. COULTER HAS RECOMMENDED BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING GET ANY FURTHER WITHOUT ADDING UNDUE EXPENSE ON TO THIS CURRENT APPLICANT.

>> C. CRANE: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FENCE THAT GOES AROUND AN ENTIRE YARD AND ONLY THREE SECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT. IT'S A FAIRLY -- YOU HAVE AN EIGHTH OF THE TOTAL PERIMETER THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF HE DOESN'T LIKE IT AND SAYS IT WASN'T PUT BACK TOGETHER THE SAME WAY IT WAS

[02:20:04]

TAKEN APART. I THINK WE'RE OPENING PANDORA'S

BOX. >> AND ALSO LOOKING AT 30 TO 40 FEET THEY'D HAVE TO PLAY WITH. IT LOOKS EADY TO FALL OVER TO

BEGIN WITH. >> ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE REPLACING THAT FENCE AT THIS APPLICANT'S EXPENSE.

GIVES THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH A SOLUTION MAYBE THE ADJACENT HOME OWNER WOULD BE

MORE HAPPY WITH. >> I AGREE, MR. COULTER.

KN -- >> C. CRANE: I ASSUME WE'VE HAD

TIME FOR ADDITIONAL CALLS OR >> WE HAVEN'T SEEN A THING.

>> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR IF NONE DO I HAVE A MOTION OR BAZ 25-2020 --

>> MADAME CHAIR I'M MOVE HE REQUEST BY MIKE MILLER AND MEREDITH BARON TO ALLOW FOR THE SUPPORTING MEMBERS OF A FENCE TO FACE OUTWARD AT 243 EAST NEW ENGLAND AVENUE AS PER CASE NUMBER BAZ 25-2020 DRAWINGS NUMBER BAZ 25-2020 DATED JUNE 5, 2020, BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF MEMO AS PRESENTED

IN OUR MEETING. >> SECOND.

>> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> CALLER: THANK YOU. >> FOR THE RECORD IT WAS SUPPOSED TO STATE 243 WEST NEW ENGLAND.

>> THANK YOU, I THOUGHT I SCREWED UP.

>> YOU'RE FINE. >> C. CRANE: OUR LAST ITEM OF

[8. Variance – Side Yard Setback - Addition/Alteration – 536 Loveman Ave. (Lauerhass Architecture/Chamberlin) BZA 26-2020]

PUBLIC HEARING IS A VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD STBACK FOR ADDITION/ALTERATION AT 536 LOVEMAN AVENUE THE APPLICANT IS LAUERHASS ARCHITECTURE/CHAMBERLAIN CASE BZ

26-2020. >> THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR.

THE FINAL PROPOSAL IS IN REGARDS TIE PROPERTY IN THE R10 ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE PROPOSAL BEING TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION OVER THE SIDE AND REAR SECTION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE.

THE ADDITION WOULD BE IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS ADDITION TO INCREASE THEIR LIVING SPACE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED SECTION OVER THE GARAGE IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

IT'S PROPOSED TO BE FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE. WORTHINGTON ORDNANCES STATE FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD, WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS, THE PREVAILING SETBACK BE MET AND EACH SITE SIDE YARD SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET. WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND-STORY ADDITION OUR FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE A VARIANCE OF TWO FEET IS REQUIRED.

SOME CONCLUSIONS, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED AS THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THEY'RE ABILITYING -- BUILDING ABOVE THAT AND IN ADDITION IS THE SECTION TO BE SETBACK I BELIEVE SIX AND A HALF FEET SO TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. STAFF ALSO FEELS THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THIS ADDITION. AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU HAVE ON THIS MATTER. >> C. CRANE: THANK YOU.

ARE THERE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

[02:25:05]

DO YOU WE HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE?

>> CALLER: YES, I AM HERE. >> C. CRANE: PLEASE SWEAR THE

APPLICANT, PLEASE. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> AMY LAUERHASS, 536 LOVEMAN

AVENUE. >> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD. >> CALLER: THAT'S A OOD SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING ADDING OVER AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. OUR LOT IS SMALLER THAN THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE FOR THIS DISTRICT SO WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE MOST OF A SMALL LOT AND OUR NEW ADDITION WE ARE PROPOSING BEHIND THE GARAGE IS SET BACK WITHIN THE REQUIRED

SETBACKS. >> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS? ONCE AGAIN FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT YOU CAN E-MAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN. HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS ISSUE SO FAR?

>> NO, WE AVE NOT. >> C. CRANE: IN THAT CASE WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER BRIEF PAUSE FOR A MINUTE, MINUTE AND A HALF TO

ALLOW PEOPLE TO CALL IN. >> C. CRANE: HAVE WE RECEIVED

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? IF NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR BAZ 26-2020?

>> MADAME CHAIR, I'LL MOVE THE REQUEST BY LAUERHASS ARCHITECTURE ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS FOR A CODE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AS FOR CASE BAZ 26-2020, DRAWINGS BAZ 26-2020 DATED JUNE 5, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF MEMO AS PRESENTED IN THE MEETING.

>> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> C. CRANE: IT'S EEN APPROVED. THANK YOU.

>> CALLER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> C. CRANE: MDO WE HAVE ANY

[D. Other]

OTHER ITEMS TO BRING BEFORE US TONIGHT?

>> I HAVE TWO ITEMS TO BRING BEFORE YOU.

ONE, AS YOU KNOW, OR TELL THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF YOU TONIGHT, MS. REIBEL DID RESIGN FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AFTER THE LAST MEETING AND DID RESIGN SO COUNCIL IS LOOKING FOR

[02:30:02]

A REPLACEMENT. AS SOON AS WE HAVE UPDATED INFORMATION I'LL PASS IT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS SO YOU'RE AT LEAST IN THE LOOP. I'M NOT CERTAIN WE'LL HAVE ONE BY YOUR AUGUST MEETING BUT I THINK THE HOPE WOULD BE AT LEAST BY OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING MAYBE TO HAVE A REPLACEMENT ON BOARD.

THE ECOND ITEM IS TO LET YOU KNOW LANY'S LAST DAY IS GOING TO BE JULY 17 AND SHE'LL BE MOVING BACK TO OHIO TO WORK FOR MOMMY VALLEY PLANNING ORGANIZATION. I WANT TO THANK LANEY.

WE'VE APPRECIATED HER. WE WERE GLAD TO HAVE HER BACK AFTER THE BABY BUT GLAD TO SEE HER GO ON TO SOMETHING HOPEFULLY BETTER AND MORE EXCITING. WE WANTED TO THANK HER AND LET THE BOARD KNOW SHE'LL E LEAVING US AND AT THIS TIME WITH THE CITY BUDGET WE WILL NOT BE REPLACING.

SO IF YOU NEED TO HARASS SOMEONE YOU'LL NEED TO GIVE ME A YELL.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION SHE CAN'T LEAVE.

>> C. CRANE: HOW CAN THAT BE MORE EXCITING THAN US?

>> IT WAS A PLEASURE WORKING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THANK YOU FOR CALLING THAT OUT. I'VE ENJOYED MY TIME HERE AND YOU GUYS TAUGHT ME A LOT ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DOES. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> C. CRANE: ANY OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO

ADJOURN. >> I MOVE WE ADJOURN.

>> SECOND. >> C. CRANE: ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNING AN

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.