Oct 01, 2020 Board of Zoning Appeals

[00:00:11]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE OCTOBER 1ST, 2020, WORTHINGTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

WE ARE CONNECTING OUR VIRTUAL MEETINGS TO OUR LIVE STREAM TECHNOLOGY SO THE PUBLIC CAN OBSERVE THE MEETING.

THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IS MADE UP OF FIVE MEMBERS.

THREE MEMBER POSITIVE VOTE IS REQUIRED FOR THE PASSAGE OF ANY ITEM. ALSO PRESENT ARE BEFORE BROWN AND MS. BATAR FROM CITY STAFF. I WILL FIRST ASK

>> THANKS FOR DINNER, DADDY. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU.

I WILL FIRST ASK THAT AGENDA ITEMS BE EXPLAINED BY CITY OF STA AND AFTER THAT I WILL ASK THAT THE APPLICANT BE SORN IN AND PRESENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. I WILL THEN ASK BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.

I WILL THEN GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION. PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE SPEAKING AND YOU WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN BY CITY STAFF. FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION. YOU MAY ASK THE BOARD TO TABLE YOUR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCEEDINGS.

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FOR WAYS THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS, EMAIL CITY STAFF AT PLANNING@WORTHINGTON.ORG AND THEY WILL BE READ DURING THE MEETING OR CALL 1-567-249-0063.

WHEN YOU CALL, CONFERENCE I.D.45677589 #.

YOU WILL BE MUTED PONEN TRY AND YOU WILL NEED TO HIT *6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. THESE DETAILS ARE ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE WHERE YOU ACCESS THE MEETING.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THERE'S A 40 SECOND DELAY IN THE LIVE STREAM. THERE WILL BE PORTIONS IN THE MEETING WE WILL PAUSE TO ALOW TIME FOR THE LIVE STREAM TO CATCH UP AND ANY PHONE CALLS TO COME IN.

THAT SAID, STAFF WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? OF ALLEGIANCE AT THIS TIME. BOARD MEMBERS, THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2020 ARE PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? AND IF NONE DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AND A SECOND?

>> SO MOVED. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

AND THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. MOVING INTO OUR ITEMS OF PUBLIC

[B.1. Temporary Use Permit – Recreational Facility – 6580 Huntley Rd. (Gary Moore) TUP 01- 2020]

T.U.P. STANDS FOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

AND IT IS LOCATED AT 6580 HUNTLY ROAD.

CAN WE HAVE STAFF'S PRESENTATION PLEASE?

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MAN. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU AS YOU MENTIONED IS A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

AT LEAST IN THE SEVEN YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE FIRST ONE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH.

IT'S FOR A RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN THE NEW LOCATION OF SUPER GAMES AT 6580 HUNTLY ROAD. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER WE HAD THIS PROPERTY BEFORE US A COUPLE TIMES IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS FOR SOME SIGNAGE AND FOR FENCING IN THE FRONT SETBACK.

AGAIN, ONE SECOND, PLEASE. MINE IS ON FULL SCREEN.

SORRY, WE ARE HAVING A LULL IN THE -- SORRY, ONE SECOND. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

[00:05:31]

OKAY. SO AGAIN, THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR A TEMPORARY RECREATIONAL FACILITY.

FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR SIX MONTHS WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SX MONTHS. WHICH WOULD REQUIRE BOARD APPROVAL. WHEN SUPER GAMES MOVED FROM THEIR LOCATION -- OKAY, IT'S NOT FORWARDING.

SORRY ABOUT THIS. OKAY.

SORRY, I'M GOING TO GO QUICKLY THROUGH THIS BEFORE IT MESSES UP AGAIN. THE REQUEST IS FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS WITH ADDITIONAL SIX MONTH BOARD APPROVAL FOR A QUIRE - RECREATIONAL FACILITY.

THE APPLICANT MR. MOORE MOVED FROM LAKEVIEW PLAZA TO THEIR HUNTLY ROAD LOCATION. AGAIN, THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE ABILITY FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO APPROVE IT UP TO SIX MONTHS, AS LNG AS ITS SUBJECT TO RENEWALS IN SUCH CONDITIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE.

THE REQUEST IS TO USE TWO PICKLE BALL COURTS IN THE FACILITY NOW CURRENTLY USED BY HIS EMPLOYEES.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO, FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE DURING THE PANDEMIC TO USE THE TWO COURTS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AND THE OPERATION HOURS WILL BE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AND LIMITED IN SIZE DUE TO COVID RESTRICTIONS TO 12 PARTICIPANTS. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD REFERENCE TO FOOD TRUCKS AND PUBLIC AREAS.

WE WANT TO REFERENCE THAT IS NOT APPROVED AS PART OF THIS.

NO SIGNAGE HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE PICKLE BALL COURTS.

AND AGAIN, IT'S LIMITED TO 12 PARTICIPANTS.

AGAIN, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OHIO BUILDING CODE AND FIRE AND SAFETY AND EVACUATION PLANS.

THE DIVISION OF FIRE AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL DON PHILLIPS HAVE BEEN REVIEWING PLANS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE. THE MAIN CONCERN IS THE OVERALL PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY, GENERAL WELFARE OF WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING. AGAIN, THE BEST OPTION FOR THIS TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS SITE AS A RECREATIONAL USE, IT IS IN THE I-2 DISTRICT WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT RECREATIONAL USES.

BUT AGAIN, THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY FOR UP TO SIX MONTHS WITH SIX MONTH RENEWALS THE ABILITY TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY USE AS SUCH. AGAIN, STAFF DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS IN WORKING WITH MR. MOORE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE SOME REVENUE. AS YOU KNOW WITH SUPER GAMES, A LOT OF THEIR EVENTS TAKE PLACE ON SITE AND DUE TO PANDEMIC AND RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY A STRUGGLE FOREVER THEM.

SO THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL MEANS TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THEM.

AND I DID SEE MR. MOORE ON THE SCREEN, OR ON THE CALL EARLIER.

SO I KNOW HE COULD ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE BOARD? IF THERE ARE NONE, STAFF WILL YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT AT

THIS TIME, PLEASE. >> SURE, MR. MOORE DO YOU SWEAR

TO TELL THE TRUTH, SO SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION?

>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN REAL SUPPORTIVE DURING THIS TIME.

OUR REVENUE IS DOWN 80%. WE DO A LOT OF WORK FOR LARGE CITIES AND NFL AND THINGS. YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT IT'S LIKE.

[00:10:01]

AND THAT'S WHY THE BUILDING LOOKS SO GOODENOW BECAUSE OF THAT SUPPORT THERE. AND WE ALSO GOT SOME SUPPORT FROM THE CITY ON BEING ABLE TO COPE WITH THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE WITH COVID.

WE HAD $2500 GRANT FOR THAT AND WE USED THAT FOR DSINFECTING THE PACE AND THINGS FOR EMPLOYEES.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S RGS IF THIS IS GOING TO DO ANY GOOD. WE KNOW THE CITY RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAS REALLY LIMITED PICKLE BALL.

ONLY 18 SPOTS THE NEXT FALL TERM PEOPLE CAN PLAY PICKLE BALL THROUGH THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

SO A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE ASKING US CAN WE COME PLAY WITH

YOU. >> THANK YOU.

BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? ACTUALLY, IT'S KIND OF LINED UP

WAITING TO DO THIS. >> YES, WE HAVE SEVERAL.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED. ONLY 12 PERSON PEOPLE.

>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU CAN EENK EMAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN THERE.

STAFF, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC SO FAR?

>> NO. THERE IS ONE PHONE NUMBER ON THIS CALL THAT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY ARE CALLING ABOUT.

BUT THAT'S ALL. >> OKAY, WELL.

THEN WE HAVE OUR LITTLE PAUSE NOW IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHILE WE WAIT FOR THINGS TO CATCH UP, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT. STAFF, DID WE DETERMINE WHETHER

WE HAD -- >> PRESS *6 AND THEN SPEAK.

I WOULD SAY NO, WE DO NOT. >> OKAY, SO THERE'S NOBODY

WAITING TO -- >> NO.

AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY EMAIL EITHER.

>> OKAY. I WILL CHECK BACK WITH THE BOARD. NOW DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND IF NOT, A MOTION FOR T.U.P.01-2020.

[00:15:03]

>> AT THE REQUEST BY GARY MOORE FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN THE I2 DISTRICT.

HUNTLY ROAD, 01-2020 DATED AUGUST 25TH, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION IN THE STAFF MEMO AND PRESENTED AT THE MEATING.

-- MEETING. >> SECONDED.

MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>>

[B.2. Variance – Side Yard Setback – Fence – 74 Orchard Dr. (Peter & Joan Macrae) BZA 36-2020]

>> YES, IT'S BEEN APPROVED, THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE, BZA 36-2020 AT 74 ORCHARD DRIVE.

>> THIS LOT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORCHARD AND HARTFORD STREET IS ONE OF THE SMALLER LOTS WE HAVE IN OLD WORTHINGTON.

THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE RNOVATED THE HOUSE IN MORE RECENT YEARS.

THEY ADDED A SMALL ADDITION IN THIS AREA.

AND THEY ALSO PLACED A PERGOLA IN THE BACK.

WITH THIS APPLICATION THEY WOULD LIKE TO FENCE IN THE BACKYARD WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THEM ADDITIONAL PLACE FOR PLANTING. AND THEY WANT THE FENCE TO BE HIGH ENOUGH THAT I WOULD STOP DEER FROM COMING IN.

THEY ALREADY HAVE EXISTING FENCE ACROSS THE NORTH SIDE AND ACROSS THE REAR. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A SMALL PIECE NEEDED HERE. BUT OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOT, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE 30 FEET IN THE SOUTH SIDE FOR TE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO-THIRDS OF THAT WHICH IS TWENTY FEET.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THEY ARE ENCROACHING INTO THAT TWENTY-FOOT SETBACK. AND THE ONE OTHER THING THAT THEY WERE WE THOUGHT MAY NEED A VARIANCE IS THE HEIGHT.

THE FENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE SIX FEET AND THESE POST CAPS WOULD PUT IT ABOVE SIX FEET. BUT IT'S REALLY A FIVE-FOOT FENCE. I'M SORRY.

THEY ARE BUILDING A PORTION OF IT ON THE BLOCK WALL THAT THEY ARE PUTTING IN TO CREATE THIS PLANTING AREA.

THAT ALSO EXTENDS OUT. SO THIS WOULD JUST DROP DOWN TO A FOUR-FOOT FENCE AT THAT POINT. SO THEY ARE NOT GOING ABOVE A FIVE-FOOT FENCE TIS WHOLE WAY. BUT THIS IS THE STYLE OF THE FENCE WHICH IS A PRETTY OPEN STYLE THAT TENDS TO BLEND INTO THE BACKGROUND. I THINK THIS IS A DIFFICULT LOT TO CREATE ANY SORT OF SPACE TO BE USED BY THE HOMEOWNER BECAUSE IT'S SO SMALL. THEY ARE, AS YOU SAW IN THAT PLANTING PLAN PUTTING A NUMBER OF SHRUBS AND TREES IN THAT WILL HELP CONCEAL THIS FENCE. AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD COULD APPROVE GIVEN THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY.

>> DID THAT SAY IT WAS A 50-FOOT WIDE LOT ACROSS THE

FRONT? >> YES.

AND ONLY 128 DEEP. >> IS THIS ONE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DISTRICT OR NOT?

>> IT IS NOT. IT IS SOUTH OF THE DISTRICT.

>> OKAY. DOES THE BOARD HAVE AY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? AT THIS TIME?

[00:20:01]

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> YES.

HERE THEY ARE. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS.

DO YOU SWEAR YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL

TO ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION? >> THE ONLY THING I WILL SAY, AND I SAW YOUR SMILES IS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY EVERYBODY THAT A FIVE-FOOT FENCE IS NOT GOING TO KEEP THE DEER OUT THAT REALLY WANT TO GET THERE. SO WE ARE HOPING IT JUST BECOMES A DETERRENT AND BECAUSE ITS WIDE OPEN WE DON'T THINK THEY WILL JUMP IN THERE AND HAVE THEIR BABIES AND HAVE A LITTLE NESTING AREA. WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS MUCH TROUBLE UNTIL ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

AND PROGRESSIVELY THE DEER HAVE DECIMATED OUR GARDEN LIKE THEY HAVE WITH SO MANY OTHERS. THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO CAPTURE PART OF OUR LOT AND BRING BACK THE LUSH PLANTING.

SO THAT'S IT. >> I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PROBLEM. AS WELL AS THE SALL LOT PROBLEM. SO IT WAS PROBABLY MY SMILE.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOM BOARD MEMBERS FOR

THE APPLICANT? >> TERE'S OTHER FENCES SIMILAR TO THAT ON THE WORTHINGTON SIDE. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

AND AT LEAST TWO OF THEM ARE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW

DISTRICT THAT I CN THINK OF >> AND I AGREE.

THEY DO TEND TO BLEND IN A LITTLE BETTER THAN SOME OTHER STYLES. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WAITING TO SPEAK?

TO ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL WE DO HAVE TWO OPTIONS, IF YOU ARE WATCHING AND YOU WANT TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU CAN EMAIL OR YOU CAN CALL THE NUMBER.

ON THE SCREEN. AND WE WILL PAUSE WHILE WE ALLOW OUR STREAM TO CATCH UP AND PEOPLE TO CALL IN.

>> ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WAITING TO

ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION? >> NO.

NO ONE HAS EMAILED OR CALLED IN. SQULOO

>> I WILL CHECK BACK WTH THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW.

DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR MOTIONS FOR B.Z.A. 36-2020?

>> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE REQUEST BY PETER AND JOANNE MACRAE FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR A FENCE TO BE LOCATED I REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND TO HAVE POST CAPS NO HIGHER THAN SIX FEET ON 74 ORCHARD DRIVE AS PER B.Z.A. 36-2020, DRAWINGS DATED AUGUST 26TH, 2020 BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, INCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF MEMO AND OR PRESENTED

AT TE MEETING. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL PLEASE.

[00:25:16]

THANK YOU. >> MAY I ASK A QUESTION REAL

QUICK? >> SURE.

[B.3. Variance – Front Yard Setback – Handrails – 98 E. New England Ave. (Mark & Susan Taylor) BZA 37-2020]

>> ARE WE NOW SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND

PICK UP A PERMIT. >> DID YOU APPLY FOR A FENCE

PERMIT ALREADY? >> YES.

AND WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

>> THAT'S WHERE THIS STARTED. >> THEY WILL CALL YOU WHEN THE PERMIT IS READY. IT SHOULD BE IN A DAY OR TWO.

>> SO YOU REPORT TO DON -- YES.

>> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE BZA 37-2020.

IT'S LOCATED AT 98 EAST NEW ENGLAND AVENUE.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MAN. THE REQUEST IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST NEW ENGLAND AVENUE. MAKE SURE WE ARE ADVANCING.

IT'S JUST FOR THE ADDITION OF HANDRAILS.

THE EXISTING HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET FROM THE EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THE STOOP IS 25 FEET AND THE ADDITION OF THE HANDRAILS WILL ENCROACH AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET, ULTIMATELY LEAVING ABOUT 23 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

A LTTLE HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY, BACK IN 2002, THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DID APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED FRONT PORCH THAT INCLUDED A VARIANCE FORSETT BACKS.

-- FOR SETBACKS. HOWEVER IT DIDN'T INCLUDE HANDRAILS, HOWEVER THE PORCH WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED.

THIS WENT BEFORE THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD AND WAS APPROVED. THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED.

YOU WILL SEE A VARIETY OF HOUSING STYLES THAT ENCROACH IN THE SETBACKS AND THE HANDRAILS PROVIDE SAFETY FOR THOSE COMING AND GOING INTO THE HOUSE, HE IS ESPECIALLY IN INCLEMENT WEATHER. STAFF HAD NO CONCERNS AND CAN ANSWER AY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF ABOUT THIS PROJECT? THEN STAFF, WILL YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT THIS TIME?

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE

TRUTH, IF SO, SY I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> SORRY.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION?

>> I DO NOT. I THINK THEY COVERED IT PRETTY

WELL. >> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU CAN ETHER EMAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN.

HAVE WE HAD ANYBODY WAITING TO COMMENT SO FAR?

>> WE D NOT HAVE ANYONE WAITING AT THIS TIME.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE OUR PAUSE AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT. HAVE WE HAD ANYONE CALLING IN

OR EMAILING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL? >> NO, MA'AM.

[00:30:02]

>> ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT I WILL CHECK BACK WITH BOARD MEMBERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. IF NONE DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR

B.Z.A. 37-2020. >> MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MONTH THAT THE REQUEST BY MARK AND SUSAN TAYLOR CASE B.Z.A.

37-2020 DRAWINGS NUMBER 37-2020, SORRY, [INTERFERENCE] BASED ON

[B.4. Variance – Rear Yard Setback – Screen Room – 1177 Macgregor West Ave. (Kristen & Benjamin Buss) BZA 38-2020]

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL PLEASE.

IT'S BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE B.Z.A. 38-2020, LOCATED AT 1177

MCGREGOR WEST AVENUE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

WE ARE GOING TO JUMP OVER TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY OF LINWORTH IS MAC GREGOR WEST AVENUE.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIS PROPERTY. AGAIN IT'S A CORNER LOT.

CORNER LOTS AULGZ HAVE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND QUIRKY TO DO ANYTHING. ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MAC GREGOR AND PRRY DRIVE AND PERRY HIGHLANDS.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A RENDERING OF WHAT THE SCREENED ROOM WOULD LOOK LIKE. THE SCREEN ROOM.HE DECKING JUST- APPROXIMATELY 20 X 20. THAT DOES INCLUDE THE OVERHANGS AND THE GUTTERS THAT ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS.

AGAIN, WHEN YOU ARE IN PERRY HIGHLANDS AND DRIVING AROUND, THERE'S 48 HOUSES TOTAL AND IN TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND WHEN I WAS OUT THERE THE OTHER DAY TAKING PICTURES, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 20-22 OF THOSE HOMES HAVE SOME TYPE OF PATIO ROOM ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE A SCREEN PORCH OR THREE-SEASON ROOM ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS TO GO UP TO TEN FEET FROM THE REAR YARD.

WHICH IS A 20-FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED.

AGAIN OF THE 48 HOMES THERE'S AT LEAST 20 PLUS HOMES THAT HAVE SOME SORT OF SCREENED PORCH OR THREE-SEASON ROOM.

THE LOCATION OF THE SCREENED PORCH ON THE SITE PLAN IS IN A GENERAL LOCATION YOU WILL SEE IN A MINUTE OF THE EXISTING PAVER PATIO ON THE LOT. AGAIN, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE SCREENED PORCH FROM PERRY DRIVE A LITTLE BIT FROM MACGREGOR BUT MAJORITY FROM PERRY DRIVE.

AGAIN WHAT YOU CAN SEE BETWEEN THE TO HOUSES, THE APPLICANT HAS A SUN SHADE UP. THE SCREEN PORCH WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE HOUSE AROUND THE CORNER.

FROM THIS ANGLE YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T SEE THE SCREENED PORCH.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE SIDE YARD LOOKING TOWARD THE APPLICANT IN THIS AREA IS WHERE THE SCREENED PORCH WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.

AGAIN, STAFF DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS AND WAS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. I DID SEE THE APPLICANTS AT LEAST POP ON EARLIER. IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THEM THEY ARE HERE TO ANSWER IT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM STAFF OR THE BOARD? STAFF, WILL YOU PLEASE SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME?

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

IF SO, SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD

TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION? >> NO, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY ACCURATE. WE WERE LOOKING TO HAVE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINING SPACE FREE OF BUGS ESPECIALLY WITH COVID HAPPENING.

SO WE CAN STILL BE PRT OF COMMUNITY AND SEEING PEOPLE.

>> AND I THINK YOU ALSO SHOULD HAVE IS RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBOR WHO IS JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US, WHO WOULD BE JUST BEHIND THE WHERE THIS ROOM WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.

SO WHO WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION, THAT HE IS

AWARE AND IN SUPPORT. >> AND THAT WAS SENT OUT TO THE

BOARD. >> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS?

[00:35:02]

PAUSE AGAIN. >> HAS ANYONE CALLED IN OR

EMAILED ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OR IF NONE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MOTIONS REGARDING B.Z.A.

38-2020? >> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THE REQUEST BY KRISTEN AND BENJAMIN BUSS TO ALLOW FOR A SCREEN ROOM TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1177 MACGREGOR WEST AVENUE AS PER

[B.5. Variance – Front Yard Setback – Front Porch – 784 Oxford St. (James Ross/Riley) BZA 39-2020]

AND OR PRESENTED AT THE MEETING. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> IT'S BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS B.Z.A. 39-2020 LOCATED AT 784 OXFORD STREET.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED FRONT PORCH THAT IS GOING TO BE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. THE PORCH WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET WIDE BY 7FEET DEEP IN SIZE.

THE EXISTING HOUSE IS ALREADY LOCATED 28 FEET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO WITH THIS IT WILL BE 21 FEET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN THE VARIANCE REQUEST WILL BE FOR NINE FEET. AGAIN, THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU DRIVE-THRU -- THROUGHOUT OLD WORTHINGTON, YOU SEE STOOPS AND HANDRAILS AS WE HAVE SEEN TONIGHT. SO IT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF CHARACTER. THIS DID GO BEFORE THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BARD ON SEPTEMBER 10TH AND WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD. STAFF DIDN'T SEE ANY CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED REQUEST. AND STAFF CAN ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL? WAS THERE, MR. COULTER? WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION BY

A.R.B. >> THERE WEREN'T ANY ISSUES WE HAD. WE THOUGHT THE STYLE OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND WHAT WAS BEING PLANNED WOULD BE A NICE

ADDITION TO THIS HOME. >> STAFF THEN, WILL YOU SWEAR

IN THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? >> SURE.

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

>> I DO. >> AND DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO

ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION? >> I DO NOT.

[00:40:07]

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> ALL RIGHT AND THEN SINCE THERE ARE NONE WAITING, WE WILL ALLOW TIME FOR SOME TO COME IN, SHOULD ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK. SO WE WILL TAKE OUR PAUSE.

>> HAS ANYONE CALLED IN OR EMAILED REGARDING THIS PROJECT

DURING THAT TIME? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. IF NOT DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR

B.Z.A. 39-2020. >> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THE REQUEST BY JAMES ROSS ON BEHALF OF ANNE REILLY FOR A VARIANCE TO ADD A COVERED FRONT PORCH AT 784 OXFORD STREET BE

[B.6. Variance – Setback from Alley – Fence – 5716 Foster Ave. (John S. Jones) BZA 40-2020]

>> I SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL, PLEASE. >>

>> YES. IT'S BEEN APPROVED, THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE B.Z.A. 40-2020.

LOCATED AT 5716 FOSTER AVENUE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A FENCE THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS STREET MAY LOOK FAMILIAR.

AT OUR MEETING IN, ITHINK IT WAS JULY, WE HAD TWO CASES ON THE AGENDA THAT WERE FOR FENCES BEING LOCATED AND RECONSTRUCTED WHERE THEY ABUTED A 16-FOOT ALLEYWAY THAT RAN PARALLEL TO FOSTER. SO AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE AT THE REAR OF THEIR PROPERTY.

HE IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE IT WITH A DECORATIVE FOUR-FOOT BLACK FENCE, ALUMINUM FENCE. SO A VARIANCE OF 30 FEET IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REQUIRED BECAUSE IT HAS A 30-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT EXISTING 16 FOOT ALLEY IS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT SHOULDN'T IMPACT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.

AS YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM OUR PREVIOUS CASES, THERE IS EXISTING FENCES ALL ALONG THE EXISTING ALLEYWAY ALREADY.

THE CENTRAL CHARACTER SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED.

AND AGAIN, THE BOARD AT THEIR AUGUST MEETING DID APPROVE SIMILAR REQUEST FOR THE NEIGHBOR TWO DOORS UP AND ACROSS THE STREET. AND STAFF DID NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES OR CONCERN. IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE IS AT END OF LIFE AND THE APPLICANT WANTED TO REPLACE IT. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME AND WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE ALSO.

[00:45:03]

>> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? ALL RIGHT, STAFF, WILL YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME, PLEASE.

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

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU DO YU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO STAFF'S

PRESENTATION? >> NOTHING TO ADD.

AN OBSERVATION, I'S INTERESTING THAT A REAR YARD IN THE ALLEY BECOMES A FRONT YARD AS PRESENTED IN THE MOTION.

SO I HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS. >> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WAITING TO COMMENT OR ANY EMAIL COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN SO FAR?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> THEN ONCE AGAIN I WILL SAY WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING COMMENT.

YOU CAN EMAIL OR CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN.

AND WE WILL TAKE A SHORT PAUSE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT, HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS COMING IN DURING THIS

TIME? >> NO, MA'AM.

WE DO NOT. >> ALL RIGHT.

BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MOTIONS REGARDING B.Z.A. 40-2020?

>> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE THE REQUEST BY JOHN S. JONES FOR A VARIANCE FROM CODE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE LOCATED IN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT 5716 FOSTER AVENUE AS PER CASE NUMBER B.Z.A. 40-2020. DRAWINGS NUMBER B.Z.A. 40-2020.

[B.7. Variance – Side Yard Setback – Garage – 655 Hartford St. (James Ross/Mullen) BZA 41-2020]

MEETING. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL PLEASE?

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE NUMBER B.Z.A.41-2020 LOCATED AT 655 HARTFORD STREET.

>> THIS IS ANOTHER CORNER LOT ON THIS AGENDA.

AND WITH THE SAME DIFFICULTIES THAT W SAW IN THE PREVIOUS ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA. THE LOT IS RELATIVELY SMALL.

A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN SOME. 75 FEET BY 127 FEET.

BUT AGAIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK IN THE FRONT IS 30 FEET, SO 20 FEET IS THE REQUIREMENT T MEET. THE OTHER FACTOR THAT PLAYS INTO TIS IS THE 66-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW 55-FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAYS IN THE CITY BUT THIS ONE HAPPENS TO BE 66 FEET.

SO THAT GIVES US A 25-FOOT TREE LOT AND SIDEWALK AREA.

WHICH IS NOT TYPICAL OF EVERYWHERE IN OLD WORTHINGTON.

SO THE APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE OFF THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND IT WOULD BE 24 BY 24.

[00:50:12]

THEY WILL MAKE THIS 30 FEET OUT AT THE CURB.

SO THIS WILL BE CONCRETE IN THIS WHOLE AREA.

SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO BE APPROXIMATELY SIX AND A HALF FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE WHERE 20 IS REQUIRED.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOMES ON THE OTHER THREE CORNERS ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINES AS WELL. THERE WERE DIFFICULTIES TERE AS WELL WITH TRYING TO FIT EVERYTHING ON A PROPERTY THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN ADDED ONTO BUT HAS NEVER HAD A GARAGE BEFORE.

SO THIS IS WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE 24-FOOT WIDE GARAGE.

THEY DESIGNED IT IN SUCH A WAY TO HELP MINIMIZE THE LOOK OF IT.

ON THIS HOUSE, AND IT ALSO COMPLIMENTS THE REST OF THE HOUSE. THE PROPOSAL WAS APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD. AND THEY FELT THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO FIT IN WELL WITH THE HOUSE AND DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S PROPOSED LOCATION WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

>> COULD YOU GO BACK ONE, NOW TWO PICTURES, TO WHERE WE SEE THIS SIDE YARD. YEAH.

THE GARAGE IS GOING TO BE THEN TO THE --

>> IT WOULD EXTEND OUT THIS WAY AND BE IN THIS GENERAL AREA.

>> AND THEN WOULD THIS EXISTING CONCRETE PAD REMAIN.

OFFER I GUESS I COULD ASK THE APPLICANT THAT.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT THAT APPROACH

AREA IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. >> OKAY.

BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? AND DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT

HERE? >> YEAH, WE ARE HERE.

>> WOULD YOU SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT PLEASE, STAFF.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE

TRUTH, IF SO, SAY I DO. >> I DO.

>> THANKS. >> THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION?

>> I DON'T THINK SO. NOT MUCH.

LINDA DID ANOTHER WONDERFUL JOB EXPLAINING EVERYTHING.

I THINK WE HAVE BEEN VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE LOOK OF THE HOUSE. I THINK THE FACT THAT WE ARE ON A CORNER LOT OBVIOUSLY LIMITS US ON WHAT WE CAN DO.

WE THOUGHT ABOUT A DETACHED GARAGE, BUT ULTIMATELY WE WANTED TO DO AN ATTACHED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO KEEP A LOT OF OUR BACKYARD. THERE'S A BIG TREE IN THE BACKYARD WE WOULD HAVE TO LOSE IF WE DID AN ATTACHED GARAGE OPTION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY, WE WILL BE PUTTING THE GARAGE OVER A LOT OF THE DRIVEWAY, SO USING UP A LOT OF THE HARD SCAPE THAT IS ALREADY THERE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS SOMEBODY HAD OVER TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THE BLUE S.U.V.

SITS, WE ARE ACTUALLY GING TO BE KEEPING THAT PART OF THE DRIVEWAY THERE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AS

WELL. >> OKAY.

SO THEN, WERE THE BLUE CAR IS, WHERE THE RED CAR IS, AND THEN THERE WILL BE ROOM FOR AN ADDITIONAL CAR OVER TO THE LEFT?

>> CORRECT. >> WHERE YOU SEE THE RED CAR THAT WILL BE THE FIRST BAY. SO RIGHT WHERE THE SIDE PORCH ENDS RIGHT THERE IS WHERE THE GARAGE WILL BEGIN.

AND IT WILL TAKE, THE RED CAR WILL BE ONE BAY AND TO THE LEFT

OF THAT WILL BE OUR SECOND BAY. >> OAY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANYONE WAITING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS

TIME? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL WE DO HAVE TWO OPTIONS.

IF YOU ARE WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT YOU CAN EITHER

[00:55:01]

ALL RIGHTMENT . HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS COMING

IN EITHER VIA EMAIL OR PHONE? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS REGARDING

B.Z.A.41-2020? >> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE REQUEST BY JAMES ROSS ON BEHALF OF DANIEL AND SARA FOR VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 655 HARTFORD STREET, B.Z.A.41-2020, DRAWINGS NUMBER B.Z.A.41-2020, DATED SEPTEMBER

[B.8. Variances – Front & Side Yard Setback – Addition – 566 Park Blvd. (Jonathan Leonard, Architect/Payne) BZA 42-2020]

>> I'LL SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

STAFF, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE B.Z.A.42-2020, LOCATED AT 566 PARK BOULEVARD.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. WE ARE OVER IN COLONIAL HILLS.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EXTENSIVE RENOVATION TO THE HOME. WE HAVE A SMALL LOT APPROXIMATELY 49 FEET IN WIDTH, AND 135 FEET DEPTH FOR A LITTLE OVER 166 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DO AN ADDITION TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOME, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME.

THE MEMOS HAD THE DIRECTIONS WRONG IN THE MEMOS SO I APOLOGIZE. WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE ON THE SCREEN IS THE EXISTING HOUSE IS 30 FEET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU, I DID IT SIDE WAYS, SO I APOLOGIZE. THE ACTUAL WEST SIDE OF THE HOME, THE APPLICANT STATES THEIR EXISTING, WITH THE NEW ADDITION WILL BE THREE FEET FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

THEY WILL BE ADDING ONTO THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR ABOVE SO YOU WILL SEE THAT ENCROACHMENT IN THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, AS YOU SEE ON THE BOTTOM SIDE FLT SCREEN.

THEY WILL BE ADDING A FRONT PORCH, OPEN AIR WITH PER GO -- PERGOLA AND PLANTERS. AND THEN THE THE WEST ERN

[01:00:02]

SO CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED ON THAT, AS YOU WILL SEE IN JUST A MINUTE. THE SITE PLAN DOES SHOW ADDITION OF A REAR PATIO WITH A PERGOLA THAT APPEARS TO ENCROACH IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK HOWEVER THE RENDERINGS PROVIDED SHOW A DIFFERENT LOOK. SO WE WEREN'T SURE IF THE SHADOWING WAS INCORRECT ON THIS. SO WE HAD A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. AND CLARIFICATIONS THAT WERE NEEDED TONIGHT. SO AGAIN, THE HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO BE THREE FEET FROM THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

SO A VARIANCE OF FIVE FEET IS NEEDED.

SOME SIDE YARDS WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT EQUAL TO 20 FEET.

IT IS ONLY GOING TO, WITH THE FIVE FEET ON THAT EASTERN SIDE, THE TOP SIDE OF THE SCREEN AND THREE FEET PROPOSED FOR THE SOUTHERN, OR WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, SO A VARIANCE OF 12 FEET IS REQUESTED. AGAIN, THE OPEN FRONT PORCH AND PERGOLA AND RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED WILL BE 18 FEET FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT O WAY, SO A VARIANCE OF 12 FEET IS GOING TO BE NEEDED. AGAIN, THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED.

AS YOU DRIVE-THRU THE MAJORITY OF THE HILLS YOU SIVA RYITY OF SETBACKS, STYLES, LOT SIZES, HOWEVER THE MAJORITY OF THE LOT SIZES ARE A LITTLE TIGHT. THE EXISTING HOME ALREADY ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE SETBACK.

SO ADDITIONAL 5-7 FEET SHOULDN'T ALTER THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE REAR PATIO AND PERGOLA APPEARS TO ENCROACH IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK HOWEVER I THINK CLARIFICATION IS JUST NEEDED FROM THE APPLICANT.

AGAIN, THE, WHAT I HAVE DOWN IS THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE WILL BE THREE FEET IS THE WEST AND NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO CLARIFICATION WILL BE NEEDED. AND THE RENDERINGS YOU SAW PREVIOUSLY, WHICH I WILL JUMP BACK TO, WE DO ALLOW FOR PROJECTIONS INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO BE THREE FEET.

HOWEVER THE PROJECTIONS ARE ONLY ABLE TO BE SX INCHES EXTENDING INTO THAT SETBACK. SO WE WILL JUST NEED CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT OF WHAT THE OVERHANG AND EAVES WILL BE. BECAUSE VARIANCE MAY NEED TO BE ADDED TO ALLOW FOR THOSE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS TO EXTEND INTO THAT SIDE YARD. AGAIN IN TALKING WITH MR. PHILLIPS OUR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AND LOOKING AT IT, FIRE RATING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITIONS.

THAT WILL BE THREE FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF DID HAVE A QUESTION ON FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR THE BOARD, THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SHOWED REFERENCED A CHAIN LINK FENCE AND LARGER SDE YARD THAN WHAT WOULD HAVE SHOWN IN THE ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, PICTURES. AGAIN.

SO WE JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION. BECAUSE THIS APPEARED TO BE ABOUT THREE FEET ALREADY. AT LEAST LOOKING AT THE GATE.

EXISTING LOTS THROUGH COLONIAL HILLS DON'T MEETLE REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE DISTRICT. SO IF THE BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPLICANT'S CLARIFICATIONS, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL. AND THERE WAS JUST SOME CLARIFICATIONS NEEDED ON SETBACKS FOR THEIR SITE PLAN.

AGAIN, THIS IS LOOKING TOWARD THE APPLICANT'S REAR YARD AND THE EXISTING FENCE. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ALREADY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS THE FENCE IS NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, AS ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN.

I WILL JUMP BACK TO THE SITE PLAN FOR YOU.

>> SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE.

>> SORRY, I HAVE A TENDENCY TO RAMBLE, YOU KNOW THAT.

I WILL GET BACK TO THE SITE PLAN.

SO AGAIN, THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING SETBACKS AND THE FENCE LOCATION. SO WE JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION, IT SEEMED A LITTLE BIT TIGHTER THAN, IT'S TIGHT ALREADY, BUT JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION OF HOW THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE AT THE END. I DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE, I BELIEVE THE AFRK TEKT IS ON THE LINE.

[01:05:07]

>> YES, I'M HERE. >> AE YOU DONE NOW?

[LAUGHTER] >> YES.

>> SORRY, YOU TOOK A PAUSE BEFORE, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE.

>> I APOLOGIZE. >> NO, NO, IT'S FINE.

>> I APOLOGIZE. >> SO BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME?

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

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO

STAFF'S PRESENTATION? >> I'M GLAD TO PROVIDE ANY CLARIFICATION THAT I NEED TO. CERTAINLY THE FENCE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT CAME UP ALREADY.

THE FENCE IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S INBOARD TO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY CURRENTLY.

THERE IS THE EXISTING GARAGE THERE ON THE SHEET.

THE EXISTING GARAGE WALL IS ABOUT 7.4 AT THE NEAREST POINT.

AND WE ARE GOING TO BRING THAT TO JUST ABOUT THREE FEET I THE REQUEST. AND THEN FRONT YARD IS SOUTH AND BACKYARD IS NORTH BUT YOU ALREADY CLEARED THAT UP.

THE BACKYARD PATIO CURRENTLY THERE EXISTS IN THE EXISTING HOUSE KIND OF A THREE SEASONS ROOM.

A SUN ROOM. THE PATIO IS MEANT TO EXIST JUST ABOUT WITHIN THAT FOOTPRINT AND IT IS UP ON THE PAGE. IT IS IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO WHAT YOU ARE SEING THERE, THAT'S CAUSING SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS THE SHADOW LINE.

>> I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.

>> THE PROPOSED PATIO WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THAT.

AND WE'RE NOT EXTENDING AT ALL UP ON THE STREET.

THE EXISTING HOUSE WOULD BE THAT EDGE.

THE ADDITION IS ACTUALLY DOWN ON THE STREET.

EXTENDING IN THE FRONT YARD, THE OTHER VARIANCE REQUEST IS REALLY AN OPEN PORCH, WHICH YOU ALSO MENTIONED.

SO AS FAR AS A COVERED CONDITIONED STRUCTURE, THE EXISTING HOUSE REMAINS THAT IN THE FRONT YARD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INSTALLING A PLANTING AREA.

A PLANTER BED AT GRADE. AND THAT'S ALL.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> STAFF, DOES THAT CLEAR UP

THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR

THE APPLICANT? >> ACTUALLY, MADAM CHAIR.

I DID HAVE THE CLARIFICATION WE DO NED IS RELATED TO THE OVERHANG SO IT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE OR WE WOULD NEED TO ADD THAT AS A VARIANCE AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

>> YEAH, CURRENTLY THEY ARE SHOWN AT ONE-FOUR THE PROJECTION ON THAT EAVE. THE EAVE AND THE RAKE.

THAT COULD BE REDUCED IF IT'S AN ISSUE.

OR WE CAN MAKE IT PART OF THE VARIANCE, I GUESS.

EITHER WAY. YOU SAID SIX INCHES IS THE

LIMIT ON THAT? >> YES.

>> SO IF YOU ADD THAT TO THE VARIANCE DOES THAT ENCROACH FURTHER INTO THE SIDE YARD MAKING IT WHAT?

>> YOU PROBABLY, I CAN'T TELL, THE APPLICANT WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO ANSWER. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BRING IT WITHIN A FOOT AND A HALF OF WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT WOULD BE A RATED WALL AT THAT, THAT WALL OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> SO WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING SOMEONE COULD WALK UNDER?

>> YES, MA'AM. WHERE YOU CAN SEE THIS PROJECTING. WHERE YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, OR WHAT'S ON THE WESTERN ELEVATION. YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO WALK UNDER

[01:10:02]

ENCROACHMENT. >> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MAINTENANCE, OF COURSE. IF YOU ARE JUST A FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S NOT VERY MUCH ROOM.

COULD WE SEE, WHAT'S NEXT TO THE PROPERTY WHERE THAT IS ENCROACHING SO MUCH. IS THE OTHER HOUSE THAT CLOSE,

OR? >> THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE, THE GARAGE PORTION IS VERY CLOSE. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A -- YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT, THIS IS IN THE BACKYARD OUT TOWARDS THE STREET. THE NEIGHBORING GARAGE.

IT'S A TOUCHED TO THEIR HOUSE, BUT THE NEIGHBORING GARAGE IS REAL CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE ALSO.

SO THE NEIGHBORS EXISTING GARAGE ENCROACHES INTO THAT SIDE YARD ALSO. SO IT WILL BE, IT'S VERY CLOSE.

WE WILL SEE IF THERE'S A BETTER PICTURE.

IT'S PROBABLY ALSO AROUND THREE FEET.

>> IT SHOWS ON THE SITE PLAN AS WELL.

>> OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD? >> HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS WHO OWN THIS HOUSE, REGARDING THE PROJECTIONS OF WHAT WILL END UP BEING ONE AND A HALF FEET LEFT?

>> NO, SIR. >> HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS AT ALL VIA EAIL OR PHONE?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE WILL TAKE A PAUSE AND ALLOW SOME OF THOSE TO COME IN, IF

ANYONE SHOULD WISH TO COMMENT. >> LET ME GET THE SLIDE UP REAL

QUICK. >> SORRY, IM GETTING THERE.

>> AM I ALLOWED TO TALK DURING THE PAUSE.

>> NOT IF IT'S RELEVANT AND GIVES NEW INFORMATION.

>> OKAY. I'LL WITHHOLD.

>> THIS IS LIKE THE LONGEST 90 SECONDS I FEEL WE HAVE EVER HAD.

>> ALL RIGHT, HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS COME IN DURING OUR

PAUSE? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD?

>> MY ONLY COMMENT WAS GOING TO BE AND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THIS AS PART OF MY TALKING PORTION.

WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS JUST TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND INTRODUCE THE PROJECT TO THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED. AND THEY HAVE ALL BEEN POSITIVE IN RESPONSE TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING.

THEY HAVE ALL BEEN INTERESTED, IN TERMS OF THE CONSTRUCTION.

IT'S ALL BEEN POSITIVE. THAT'S ALL.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS REGARDING

B.Z.A.42-2020? >> MADAM CHAIR, I DID WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION BEFORE THE VOTE IS CALLED.

IF WE DID WANT TO CONSIDER TE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS AS AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BOARD WAS INTERESTED IN THAT. WE WOULD JUST NEED TO ADD THAT, WHOEVER MAKE THE MOTION, IF THEY CAN REFERENCE THAT, WE COULD ADD THAT AS PART OF THIS, OR IF THE BOARD DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT. WHICH EVER WAY YOU GO, JUST

[01:15:01]

WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF IT. >> DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY PREFERENCE ON THAT? OKAY, DO YOU WANT TO ADD IT?

>> ALL RIGHT. >> AS HIS HEAD NODS.

>> MADAM CHAIR I MOVE THE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SIDE AND FRONT YARDS AT 566 PARK BOULEVARD AS PR CASE NUMBER B.Z.A.42-2020, DRAWINGS NUMBER B.Z.A.42.2020, DATED SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2020.

AND THAT THE ONE FOOT SIX INCH OVERHANG BE APPROVED AS

[B.9. Variance – Rear Yard Setback – Addition – 6642 Masefield St. (James Ross/Williams) BZA 43-2020]

>> I'LL SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

STAFF, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> SURE.

>> YES. IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, GUYS. >> ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE NUMBER B.Z.A.43-2020. LOCATED AT 6642MASEFIELD STREET.

I SEE IT'S ANOTHER CORNER LOT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT CORNER LOTS COME IN FOR A GREATER SHARE OF

VARIANCES. >> TRUE, TRUE.

IT'S KIND OF FUNNY UNTIL YOU MENTIONED IT AND LOOKED UP AND SAW IT WAS A CORNER LOT AND STARTED TO GIGGLE A LITTLE.

WE HAVE ANOTHER CORNER LOT. IN THE R-10 DISTRICT, CORNER OF MASEFIELD AND THACHERY. IT'S A LITTLE OVER 11,500 SQUARE FEET IN LOT SIZE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SCREEN PORCH AND DECK AND FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TOWARD THE REAR OF THEIR HOME WHICH WILL BE GOING TOWARD THE EAST. FROM 11 FEET TO 22 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. A LITTLE HISTORY, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THIS, BACK IN APRIL OF 2016, WE DID APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK, TO INTRODUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO 23 FEET FOR AN ADDITION. THIS PORTION OF THE HOUSE YOU SEE WAS AN ADDITION TO THE HOME. BACK IN 1987 THE BOARD APPROVED VARIANCES FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE DECK TO BE LOCATED EIGHT FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.

AND THAT'S IN THIS GENERAL AREA. AND FR THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A LATTICE FEET THAT WAS EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT.

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAW IN 2016 WAS FOR THE ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE O THE HOME. THAT ENCROACHED IN THAT 3-FOOT SETBACK AND THAT EXISTING DEATH. WHAT YOU SEE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE HOME IS A COVERED FRONT PORCH WITH A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TO THE NORTH THAT WOULD HAVE A DECK IN BETWEEN THE TWO. THE COVERED SCREEN PORCH THAT YOU SEE WILL BE IN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 11 TO 13 FEET FROM THAT REAR YARD SETBACK. AGAIN, THE DECK THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN BETWEEN THE TWO ADDITIONS WILL BE 13 TO 18 FEET AND THE FAMILY ROOM EXTENSION ON THE NORTHERN SIDE WILL RANGE FROM 18 TO 22 FEET. IN SIZE FROM THAT EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. AGAIN, THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE AREA SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED. IF YOU DRIVE THROUGHOUT, YOU CAN SEE A VARIETY OF ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO HOMES OVER THE YEARS. AGAIN, AS YOU PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IT'S A CORNER LOT. SO THE ADDITIONAL QUIRKINESS THAT ARE ADDED WHEN YOU LOOK AT AT CORNER LOT.

THERE ARE EXISTING EASEMENTS. HOWEVER OFF THIS PROPERTY, ALONG THE NORTH SIDE FOR SANITARY AND ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE FOR STORM, HOWEVER, ALL THE ADDITIONS AND EVERYTHING ARE OFF THIS PROPERTY SO IT WOULD NOT ENCROACH ANY OF THESE EXISTING EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, THE COVERED SCREEN PORCH IS IN SIMILAR LOCATION AS THE SCREENED DECK APPROVED FROM 1987.

IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION OF THE DECK THAT WAS THERE.

AGAIN, STAFF DIDN'T HAVE ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL. FELL THAT WAS A NICE ADDITION TO THE HOME. I SAW THE APPLICANTS POP ON EARLIER, SO IF THERE'S ADDITION OR CLARIFICATION, THE

[01:20:02]

BACK TO EXISTING SITE PLAN. WHERE THE PREVIOUS DECK WAS LOCATED. NEW DECK NESTLED BETWEEN THAT

AND THE FAMILY ROOM ADDITION. >> SO I ADDITION TO BEING ON A CORNER LOT THIS HOUSE IS LOCATED ON AN ANGLE.

IT'S KIND OF PLACED ON AN ANGLE SO THAT COMPLICATES THINGS AS

WELL SOMETIMES. >> IT DEFINITELY MAKES IT INTERESTING. THEY HAVE DONE A NICE JOB WITH THEIR ADDITIONS. BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE?

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

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO

STAFF'S PRESENTATION? >> NO.

IN THE TIME OF COVID, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IS WANTING TO GET SCREENED IN PORCHES AND THINGS OUTSIDE.

>> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT

SO FAR ON THIS? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT I DID TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.

WHO JUST HAD QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE STORM AND TO THE SANITARY LOCATION. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I REFERENCED THAT DURING THE PRESENTATION.

THE SANITARY SEWER LINE IS OFF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY FOR THE MAJORITY OF ITS RUN FROM EAST TO WEST AND CUTS IN THE FRONT YARD AT A POINT AND THEN A STORM ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE BUT OUTSIDE THE AREA WHERE THE APPLICANT WILL BE DOING ANY IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEN ONCE THAT WAS CLARIFIED I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBOR WAS OKAY.

>> OKAY, SO WE WILL TAKE ANOTHER PAUSE AND ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT. WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR YOU IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT, YOU CAN CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN OR YOU CAN EMAIL. IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MINUTES.

HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS COME IN DURING OUR PAUSE?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT.

BOARD MEMBERS DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. IF NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR

B.Z.A.43-2020? >> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THE REQUEST BY JAMES ROSS ON BEHALF OF MARK AND LEE WILLIAMS FOR VARIANCE FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR COVERED SCREEN PORCH DECK AND FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TO BE CONSTRUCTED TEN FEET TO 22 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 6642 MASEFIELD

[01:25:02]

DRAWINGS 43-2020. DATED SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2020, BE

[B.10. Variances – Signage – 6130 Linworth Rd. (Gondal Linworth LLC) BZA 44-2020]

>> SECOND. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

STAFF, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOUMENT -- YOU.

>> OUR NEXT ITEM IS CASE 44-2020 LOCATED AT 6130

LINWORTH ROAD. >> THIS IS THE SITE OF THE FORMER WENDY'S THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1985.

AND I'LL SAY AGAIN THAT MR. COULTER WAS THE ONE THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS LOOK. ANYWAY, WENDY'S CLOSED EARLIER THIS YEAR. THEY ARE NOW LEASING THE SPACE TO DUNKIN, FORMERLY DUNKIN DOUGHNUTS, JUST GOES BY DUNKIN NOW, AND BASKIN ROBBINS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SIGNAGE VARIANCES THAT MAKE UP THIS REQUEST.

THERE ARE MENU AND PREVIEW BOARDS.

MOVED AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHERE THEY WERE FOR WENDY'S.

THIS IS THE PREVIOUS MENU BOARD AND THOUGH APPROVED TO HAVE TANGIBLE COPY, IT WASN'T APPROVED TO BE BACK LIT IN ELECTRONIC FORM. SO THAT'S A VARIANCE FOR BOTH THE MENU BOARD AND THE PREVIEW BOARD IS TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC CHANGABLE COPY. THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT THE SIGN, THE MENU BOARD SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THREE PANELS RATHER THAN THE TWO SHOWN HERE. BUT IT IS STILL SMALLER THAN THE PREVIOUS SIGN THAT WAS AT THIS, APPROVED AT THIS LOCATION.

THE FEE STANDING SIGN IS CORNER OF LINWORTH ROAD AND 161.

WHEN TIS WENT BEFORE THE ARCHITECTURE BOARD AT ITS LAST MEETING, THEY WERE GIVEN THE OPTION OF PUTTING THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FELT THAT FILLING IN THAT BRICK AND MAKING THAT ALL BASE AND THEN HAVING THE SIGN ON TOP WAS A MORE APPROPRIATE VERSION. FOR THIS LOCATION UNFORTUNATELY IT'S LARGER THAN WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS.

SO IT'S ABOUT 41 SQUARE FEET PER SIDE AND 30 SQUARE FEET PER SIDE IS ALLOWED. THE OTHER FACTOR THOUGH IS THIS BASE IS LARGER THAN LARGER THAN WHAT OUR CODE ALLOWANCE IS.

WE HAVE TO FACTOR IN THE ENTIRE SIGN AREA SO THAT MAKES IT SEEM WORSE AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE GOES.

IF YOU TAKE OUT THE SIGN BASE WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT 11 SQUARE FEET PER SIDE, THAT IT'S LARGER THAN WHAT WE WOULD ALLOW. OF COURSE, THIS IS ALSO A CORNER LOT. THE DIFFICULTY HERE, THE APPLICANT SAYS IS THERE ARE TWO STREETS THAT THIS BUILDING FACES. SO THEY WANTED TO HAVE BOTH BUSINESSES ON, INITIALLY ALL THREE FACES BUT THEN THE EASTERN FACE, THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD WOULD NOT APPROVE.

AND FURTHER, LOOKING AT THIS THOUGH, THEY DON'T HAVE BASKIN ROBBINS SHOWN ON THE WEST FACE HERE.

IT'S ALL DUNKIN. ONLY ONE WALL SIGN IS ALLOWED PER BUSINESS. SO IT WOULD BE A VARIANCE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL SIGNS. IF THEY ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE DUNKIN ON THIS SIGN.WASN'T SURE REALLY NECESSARY.

THERE IS, THESE ARE THE COLORS AND BASIC STYLING OF WHAT THE SIGNS WOULD BE. THERE WILL BE A DIRECTIONAL

[01:30:08]

SO STAFF WASN'T SURE THAT ANYTHING IS NEEDED ON THIS WEST FACE AT ALL. IF TERE IS, IT SEEMS THEY WOULD WANT TO HAVE ONE SIGN FOR EACH BUSINESS.

FOR THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS VRIANCE TO ALLOW THESE SIGNS TO BE FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

SO THAT WULD BE OKAY. HOWEVER, OUR CURRENT CODE ONLY ALLOWS NO MORE THAN 24 INCHES BY 24 INCHES.

THEY HAVE SAID THEY ARE GOING TO REDUCE THIS DOWN.

SO IT'S NOT WIDER THAN TWO FEET. SO AS LONG AS THEY DO THAT, THEY WOULD NOT NEED A NEW VARIANCE FOR THIS.

WE ALSO THOUGH, WULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BACKGROUND OF THESE SIGNS IS NOT ILLUMINATED, JUST THE LETTERING.

HERE IS THE EXISTING BASE THAT'S STILL LEFT.

AS YOU KNOW, OUR CODE IS SET UP TO NOT ALLOW AN OVERLY LARGE AMOUNT OF SIGN AREA. AND THIS WOULD PUT THEM OVER THAT. HOWEVER, IT IS A CORNER LOT.

THEY NEED, THEY ARE LOOKING FR VISIBILITY, I THINK WITH THAT FREE-STANDING SIGN THEY GET QUITE A BIT OF VISIBILITY.

AND THEN PUTTING EITHER JUST BOTH SIGNS ON ONE FACADE OR SPLITTING THEM UP BETWEEN THE TWO IT SEEMS LIKE WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH ENOUGH ADVERTISING. THIS FREE STANDING SIGN WOULD BE BIGGER THAN THE SIGN THAT WAS ALLOWED AT U.D.F. BUT MUCH SMALLER THAN THE B.P. SIGN AT THE OTHER CORNER.

A PORTION OF U.D.F. AND THAT SIGN ARE NOT WORTHINGTON EITHER.

BUT THEY DID HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR REVIEW PROCESS AND SAID THEY WOULD STICK TO OUR GUIDELINES OR OUR CODE FOR SIZE.

>> AND REGARDING THOSE LITTLE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, YOU SAID IS THE LARGER SIZE PART OF THE VARIANCE OR YOU SAID THEY WERE

GOING TO MAKE THEM SMALLER. >> THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THEY WOULD BRING THEM DOWN TO 24 INCHES TO MEET THE CODE.

IF WE CAN CONFIRM THAT TONIGHT, THEN THEY WOULD NOT NEED A

VARIANCE FOR THESE TWO SIGNS. >> AND AS FAR AS THE COLORS AND THE LETTERING STYLES AND THE LOGOS, THAT ALL MEETS OUR CODE

AS WELL? >> YES.

BECAUSE THERE ARE THE PINK IS USED IN BOTH.

THEN BLUE ORANGE AND WHITE. THEY AREN'T MAKING USE OF THIS LOGO THAT HAS THE BLACK IN IT. IT'S GOING TO BE MORE LIKE THIS WITH THE FREE STANDING LETTERS. SO REALLY THREE COLORS.

AND THEN ON THE FREE STANDING SIGN THERE'S THE WHITE BACKGROUND TOO. WHICH WILL ALSO NEED TO BE

OPAQUE. >> THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBERS, DID YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. OR DO WE HAVE ANY INPUT FROM THE A.R.B. AS FAR AS WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ON THIS PROJECT?

>> AT THE A.R.B. WE SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY MONUMENTAL. AT THE END OF THE EVENING WE AGREED THAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED WAS FINE.

THERE ORIGINALLY WAS A SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE AND WE DID NOT APPROVE THAT AND THAT'S BEEN REMOVED FROM THE APPLICATION. AS FAR AS, I'M LOOKING AT THE WEST ELEVATION AND THERE ARE TWO SIGNS AT LEAST ON THE DRAWING. THERE'S THE ONE ON THE GABLE END AT THE ENTRY AND ANOTHER WALL SIGN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT.

AND IT ALSO SAYS DUNKIN. >> RIGHT.

THOSE WERE BOTH FOR DUNKIN. THEN THEY WOULD END UP WITH THREE SIGNS FOR DUNKIN, RATHER THAN TWO FOR EACH BUSINESS.

>> IT SEEMS THE SALLER WALL SIGN SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR BASKIN ROBBINS. I THINK EVERYBODY WAS ASSUMING IT IS, INCLUDING MAYBE THE APPLICANT.

[01:35:07]

>> IT JUST SEEMS ODD THERE WOULD BE TWO DUNKIN SIGNS ON

THAT SDE OF THE BUILDING. >> HELLO?

>> I ASSUME YOU ARE THE APPLICANT.

I WILL CALL FOR YOU TO BE SWORN IN AND GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY IN JUST A SECOND. BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO DEFINITELY HEAR FROM YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? QUESTIONS? IN THAT CASE, SAFF WILL YOU PLEASE SWEAR IN THE APPLICANT?

>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR YOUR TESTIMONY

THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO STAFF'S PRESENTATION?

>> I DO. THE SMALLER SIGN ON THE WEST ELEVATION IS A NON-ILLUMINATED, IT'S A TAG LINE, AMERICA RUNS ON DUNKIN. ON THE OTHER SIDE WE HAVE BASKIN AND DUNKIN. WE JUST AREN'T ABLE TO FIT BOTH BRANDS ON THIS GABLE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE.

DUNKIN IS THE PRIMARY CONCEPT. THAT'S WHY IT WAS PROPOSED THIS

WAY. >> SO THAT SMALLER THING IS GOING TO BE SORT O A MOTTO OR A --

>> IT'S THE NEW TAG LINE. WITH DUNKIN, IT'S MORE OF A COFFEE-BASED CHAIN. THE TAG LINE IS AMERICA RUNS ON DUNKIN. AND INSIDE WILL HAVE A TILE WALL AND SAYS WORTHINGTON RUNS ON DUNKIN.

THAT'S ITS TAG LINE. >> DO WE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH OUR SIGN CODE WITH TAG LINES? I'M NOT SURE IHAVE EVER

REVIEWED ONE. >> I THINK, IN LOOKING AT THIS, REALLY IT'S GOT TWO, WHAT WE WOULD CALL LOGOS AS PART OF THIS. SO THAT THE NUMBER OF --

>> I SEE, THERE IT IS. FONT STYLES MAY BE IN QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT COLORS ARE INVOLVED WITH THAT EITHER.

IT DOESN'T, I DON'T -- >> I THINK THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE SIGN PLACEMENT AND SIZE. WHEN TE APPLICANT GETS A SIGN PERMIT AND THAT ISSUE OF THE LOGOS MIGHT COME UP.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO

COME BACK? >> YES, IF IT BECOMES A PROBLEM.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO CALL. >> THE LITTLE RUNNER.

>> IF YOU GO BACK ONE. GO TO THE LOGO AGAIN.

THE DETAIL. IN THE NOTES IT SAYS THE DUNKIN LETTERS WILL BE PAINTED ORANGE. THE MAP, THE MAN AND APOSTROPHE WILL BE PAINTED IN THE DUNKIN PINK.

THE SAME COLORS AS THE DUNKIN LOGO.

>> SO WE EITHER HAVE TO CALL ONE OF THESE A STYLE OF LETTERING OR THESE ARE TWO LOGOS OR ITS KIND OF GOING TO

BE AN INTERPRETATION, I GUESS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD

CALL IT. >> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE? ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE? I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS THAT IF WE APPROVE A SIGN THEREOF A CERTAIN SIZE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN WE ARE APPROVING THE SIGN DESIGN. WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE APPLICANT GOES IN FOR A SIGN PERMIT AND IT TURNS OUT IT HAS TOO MANY LETTERING STYLES OR TOO MANY LOGOS THEN, IT WOULD EITHER HAVE TO ADJUST OR COME BACK TO A VARIANCE FOR SGN DESIGN.

IS THAT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OR NOT?

>> I THINK WE SHOULD HANDLE IT HERE BY CALLING IT ONE LETTER

[01:40:01]

HAS TO BE. >> I WOULD SAY I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT SHE SAID, IT IS PART OF THEIR TAG LINE.

I CAN'T IMAGINE EITHER CALLING THE GUY RUNNING ANY KIND OF A FONT STYLE. I AGREE, I THINK IT'S MORE OF A LOGO. THAT'S HOW I WOULD LOOK AT IT.

AT LEAST THAT INDIVIDUAL SIGN WOULD HAVE TWO LOGOS AND THE WORD DUNKIN, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THE FONT STYLE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY STAYED WITHIN THE COLORS, THEY HAVEN'T DEVIATED FROM THAT. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE

IT THIS EVENING. >> SO CODE ALLOWS FOR ONE LOGO,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> AND THE APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE TWO.

SO D WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? OKAY. APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING

MORE TO SAY? >> IF I MAY, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY COLORS OBVIOUSLY ON THE BUILDING.

THERE WS A HEIGHT CLEARANCE, TO KEEP THE COLORS NEUTRAL SO WE ARE GOING WITH THAT. THIS WAS THE ONLY EXPOSURE WE HAVE WITH THE BUILDING SO APPROVE IT AS IS IS FINE.

>> STAFF, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM TE PUBLIC SO FAR

VIA EMAIL OR TELEPHONE? >> NO, WE HAVE NOT.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO ONCE AGAIN WE DO HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU CAN EMAIL OR YOU CAN CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN WHILE WE TAKE A PAUSE AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO COMMENT IF THEY WISH.

HAVE WE HAD ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC COME IN DURING THAT

TIME? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR MOTION

FOR B.Z.A.44-2020? >> ARE WE ADDRESSING THIS SIGN ISSUE WITH THE LOGO, OR ARE WE TAKING CARE OF WITH THAT, BY

THE CURRENT MOTION. >> YOU WOULD NEED TO ADD THAT TO THE MOTION. TO ALLOW SIGN WITH TWO LOGOS.

>> TWO LOGOS. >> I'M SURE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WANT AMERICA DUNKIN OR RUNNING ON AMERICA.

>> MADAM CHAIR I WOULD MOVE THE REQUEST BY GONDAL LINWORTH L.L.C. B.Z.A.44-2020, DRAWINGS 44-2020 DATED SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2020 TO INCLUDE TWO LOGOS ON ONE SIDE BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION IN THE STAFF MEMO AND PRESENTED AT THE MEETING.

[01:45:03]

>> QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO MENTION IN THE MOTION THAT THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ARE REDUCED TO 24 INCHES HIGH SO THEY COME OUT OF TIS VARIANCE APPLICATION?

>> THAT WAS THE ASSUMPTION AS PART OF THE MEMO.

>> OKAY, THAT'S FINE. >> AS LONG AS THAT IS STILL THE

PLAN, THEN. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE REDUCING IT 24 INCHES IN WIDTH BUT KEEPING THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THE

BASE IS ALREADY THERE. >> GREAT.

THE TOTAL HEIGHT WOULD BE 24 FEET WITH THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE BUT THEN THE WIDTH WOULD HAVE TO BE 24 INCHES.

>> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> GTS BEEN APPROVED, THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR ITEMS TONIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS TO

BRING BEFORE US TONIGHT? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> NO FRKS MA'AM. SORRY FOR THE TECHNICAL

DIFFICULTIES AT THE BEGINNING. >> IT ONLY HAPPENS WITH THE B.Z.A. WE DON'T HAVE THIS TROUBLE WITH THE A.R.B.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.