there we
is this on okay all right thanks
everyone for coming this evening we
really appreciate um your presence here
and we want to be respectful of your
time so we'll get started right away
um
may i have the roll call please
lampke here bible
here marcelino here
here robinson here markham here and
klingler here and let's stand for the
pledge of allegiance
all right
thanks we're here to
hear the appeal
from the appellants
in application number
bzap-21-47
appeal number 22-1
i just want to go over a few
i just want to go over a few items
before we start um
procedural items
just so everyone knows no new evidence
or testimony may be presented tonight
arguments shall be presented from the
appellant and peli in the form of an
oral argument only and shall be limited
to 20 minutes each side
oral arguments shall be based upon the
assignments of error submitted with the
notice of appeal
if more than one appeal is filed it's
not
i skipped that part
um
you must limit the arguments to 20
minutes uh
and that's
do we have five minute rebuttal or no
okay yeah
can you request through attack with the
bottom level keep track yeah the
appellant did all of you that the
appellant can request a time for a
bottle so and our city attorney mark
fishel will keep track of the time
yeah please turn the microphone and um
identify yourself when you come to the
podium
mr chair council members
joe miller and liz alexander on behalf
of alex tim
and adam craig who are the principles of
consecutive primes but frankly also a
great family looking forward to calling
bexley home
i would ask to reserve three minutes for
rebuttal
now as you know we are here tonight to
discuss a variance request for 81 north
drexel the huntington house
if we could look at the next slide
please
and i'm grateful to the mayor for his
assist this evening
as i'm sure you're aware the huntington
house is one of the most unique and
historic homes in the city
built in 1923
it unfortunately had fallen into
disrepair and in fact remained vacant
for several years and had severe damage
to it when alex and adam bought the
house
i think city staff can attest and the
record is clear alex and adam have
committed substantial time and resources
to restore what should be a community
treasure
and in doing so alex and adam have been
very gratified to have heard from so
many members of the community in support
and even still on the matter that brings
us here today
they enjoy near unanimity in
neighborhood support for this project
i do want to linger for a moment if we
could on this view in the bottom right
this is the southern side of the home
that fronts on clifton that brings us
here tonight
that elevation
has no principal door to the residence
no formal entryway
it is just as you would think of it at
your own home
the rear of the house it absolutely
functions as the backyard of this
residence
and yet
under a technical definition in the city
code
it could be considered the front yard
which is why a variance is necessary at
all
if we look at the next slide
the property already enjoys substantial
privacy and screening from clifton
and from the hadley's
lot to the west which is to the left of
this photo
that will only be enhanced by this
project that privacy that screening will
only be enhanced
i can point out to you and you can see
for yourself the street view from
clifton ave
is already screened by numerous
beautiful mature trees in the middle of
the property
as the record reflects
those very large oak trees in the middle
make any further relocation of this pool
extremely problematic the extensive root
system will otherwise be damaged
and so if we look at the next slide the
plat map of the home
this shows you the unique orientation of
the house on the lot it's situated at
the northern end of the property and its
front entry actually faces the
residences on drexel and the
commonwealth park south to the north
the southern portion
along clifton
thus functions as the backyard
nonetheless
if we look at the next slide
we came for a variance
that the city
has absolutely and even routinely
granted in the past
for pools and pool houses on corner lots
on what is otherwise technically
considered the front or side yard under
the code
this is an exhibit one of our brief and
part of the record uh before you tonight
if you look at the uh
exhibit on the left the photo on the
left
the area in yellow is adam and alex's
home the huntington
house the other properties outlined in
blue those are at least eight
circumstances of again the city granting
this very variance that we're seeking
here this evening
there may be others there may be others
that are similarly situated homeowners
who did get this very same variance but
these are the ones that we ourselves uh
found and in fact if you look on the
right side of this slide
you'll see that the surrounding corner
lots with pools are outlined in blue
they include 80 north drexel avenue
90 north columbia avenue which is the
hadley's residence next door they too
have this similar variance
2355 commonwealth park south and 64
stanbury avenue right essentially on the
doorstep of this home
if we turn to the next slide
this case is very unique and that city
council
actually previously granted this same
variance for the pool on this property
in 2007
council approved a variance for a larger
pool than what alex and adam are
proposing today
this council granted the prior owners
a variance to place the pool in what is
defined as the front yard it's only
because that 2007
variance expired by the city's code that
it was suggested to alex and adam they
should seek
a new variance from bsap for the
construction of a pool
and so the first step in that process
has set forth in the next slide
was to go before the city's
architectural review board
so the layout and design of this pool
went before the architectural review
board uh it's within their province to
consider the pool and pavilion design
and location in fact as we've mentioned
in our brief
the city's code states that the arb is
charged with maintaining quote the high
character of community development
unquote ensuring quote the compatibility
of new development
and to protect real estate within the
city from impairment of value they
considered all of these things in
examining this location of this pool and
they are charged by code
to specifically regulate the design of
accessory structures
the arb here did just that and frankly
you know we'd welcome if you want to go
review the video of their meeting uh
they looked specifically at the location
and placement of the pool the arb
praised the design of this and
unanimously recommended approval
in the next slide we also make mention
of the fact that we are pleased to have
the support of the city's professional
staff
ms rose ms beaucar who examined this and
ms rose identified in her report that
the city previously granted a variance
uh for a pool in almost the identical
location that is being proposed and she
noted for the bees app that this this
property is incredibly unique this is
not standard this is not typical but
instead this really does function as the
rear yard
so with arb's unanimous recommendation
with professional staffs uh recommended
approval
alex and adam then proceeded to be zapp
and unfortunately things did not go as
one might have expected or hoped uh in
the next slide um
bezap did deviate from its own rules
this is in the brief before you as
assignment of error one
uh chairman b hall a longtime chairman b
hall had to recuse himself another
member was absent leaving only four or
five members present and an acting
chairperson uh and even then uh these
app
did not follow its rules for a
quasi-judicial hearing while they can
impose time restraints on general
comment and that type of thing when
they're acting in a quasi-judicial
hearing as they are here
they have to hear relevant testimony
upon the application from persons with
standing and unfortunately uh
alex and adam were never given the full
opportunity to address even the factors
under the code that we'll discuss here
tonight for a variance only a few
minutes in they were told you're gonna
need to wrap it up
and then as their attorney began to
explain how we conform to the variance
standards at uh hour one minute nine of
the record uh they were told by a b-zap
member i think we've had enough
testimonies and so that's incredibly
significant in that you'll be hearing
and deciding frankly in the first
instance whether the factors here are
satisfied such that a variant should be
issued let me address that now that's
our assignment of error number two in
the next slide
the application meets all necessary
requirements for a variance bexley's
code mirrors ohio law setting forth
seven factors for your consideration for
a variance
significantly not all seven need to be
met but instead you consider each factor
and determine whether in light of the
circumstances a variance is warranted in
fact your code is very specific in this
regard that each factor is quote to be
considered and weighed end quote but
there is no requirement that every
factor be met that would be imposing a
burden on these homeowners that does not
exist under the code or ohio law
regardless though i would submit to you
and we'll discuss for a few minutes how
we meet each of the factors just as
council appropriately found in 2007 with
the variance granted
at that time
the first factor in the next slide
the property will not yield adequate
return absent a variance this does not
require a showing that there will be no
return of investment on this home
obviously that's not the case or no
homeowner could show that in this city
and we know that this same variance has
been granted repeatedly
merely the denial of the variance could
impact the home's value i think it you
know common sense serves you well in
this matter that a home of this caliber
a pool would be an expected attribute
and a component of the property's value
if this variance is not allowed a pool
cannot be placed on the property period
and that would negatively impact the
property's value
second in the next slide
you can weigh and examine whether this
variance is substantial it is not
uh
there is no real debate that this area
functions as the backyard and but for a
technical reading of the code
we wouldn't even be here
under the code typically a pool can be
constructed in the backyard as of right
the code requires no screening or
buffering for a pool or a pool house
under the code a pool house could be
located three feet off the property line
a pool could be located eight feet off
the property line
here
the pool as proposed by alex and adam is
20 percent smaller than allowed by code
20 smaller than approved by this council
in 2007
the pool pavilion is set back five times
as much as required by code 15 feet
the pool is more than 18 feet back from
the hadley's closest lot line it's more
than 110 feet from the nearest corner of
their home
and while no screening would otherwise
be required we'll see in a moment we
have a proposed essentially a living
wall of evergreens all 12 feet to 18
feet in height day one that is what will
be installed day one a six foot high
masonry wall
the pool equipment has been removed away
from this area and that area now will
likewise have further screening and
buffering placed within it and the audio
system has been oriented away from the
hadley's yard this variance i submit to
you is not substantial
just as council found on a greater pool
was not in 2007
the third factor for your consideration
is the variance consistent with the
character of the neighborhood i think as
this visual shows this variance is
completely consistent with the character
of the neighborhood and in fact one fact
that's omitted if you look at where the
number two is that's the southeast
corner of drexel and clifton
right there that home also received a
variance for its pool house to encroach
into the front yard we didn't even
include that
so i would submit to you the denial of
the variants would be completely
inconsistent with the variances granted
to the neighbors and similarly situated
homeowners and the character of the
neighborhood
the next factor for consideration is
will the neighbors suffer a substantial
detriment due to the variance
i submit to you there is no evidence in
the record evidence
that any neighbors will suffer a
substantial detriment to this pool and
pavilion i want to be very respectful of
mr and mrs hadley
but again they are the only neighbor
that has expressed any concern
about this project whatsoever
and yet the hadley speculation regarding
noise from some future parties that may
at some point in time occur does not
constitute evidence as a matter of law
in ohio
further it's not enough that a neighbor
prefers to have the pool in another
location or finds the design
inconvenient these words are very
specific
it is whether this pool will cause the
hadleys to quote suffer a substantial
detriment
i submit to you that they will not
as shown this is the visual this is the
view looking towards the hadley's yard
this pool will be invisible to them
we have made many accommodations to
address their concerns which we've
itemized on this slide we've not moved
the pool we care very deeply about those
oak trees
and i think any further movement of it
would simply be arbitrary at the expense
of the aesthetics that the arb loved at
the expense of the trees that we all
want to love that we all love and want
to preserve and putting it for instance
in the frontage by drexel can't work and
isn't isn't appropriate
so i believe respectfully that the view
of all of the other neighbors is the
correct one whether it's the almonds to
the north ohio state university
president johnson to the east the
tuckermans to the south all of whom
their support is in the record before
you
folks here tonight in support and the
many others from whom alex and adam have
heard the neighbors otherwise uniformly
agree
that they will substantially benefit
not to their dutchman will benefit from
this project to return the huntington
house to its grandeur for decades to
come three minutes joe
while preserving the uh mature trees i
think this weighs in favor
i will go very quickly uh through the
other factors uh the variance will not
adversely affect the delivery of
governmental services that's undisputed
the predicament and and mr official i
have less than 15 minutes did it start
right you want a three minute rebuttal
oh i'm sorry i thought you said i only
had three minutes left i apologize so
three for this got it okay sorry
uh this predicament uh oh the property
owner had no knowledge of uh the zoning
restriction that's undisputed in the
record alex and adam had no knowledge of
what appears to be their backyard that
it would be considered the front yard
under city code the sworn testimony of
mr tim before beezap was unrefuted and
established with this conclusively
the sixth factor
this predicament cannot be eliminated
through some other uh method it is
undisputed a pool can't fit in the front
of the house or to the west it can't go
on the frontage on drexel a variance is
necessary in order to locate a pool on
this property at all as recognized by
council in 2007
finally the spirit and intent of the
zoning code
the spirit and intent of the zoning code
will be observed and i want to talk
about substantial justice being done we
certainly believe that the intent of the
zoning code will be observed pools are
freely allowed as of right in the
backyard this functions as the backyard
council itself recognized the variance
was necessary because of the unusual
configuration of lots in this area just
as it recognized it when the variance
was granted for mr hadley and others
but substantial justice will that be
done in granting this variance
it's actually necessary to grant the
variants i submit in order to do
substantial justice
variances such as this have been
routinely granted for corner lots
including in the immediate vicinity of
this home the variance is necessary so
that substantial justice can be done
um it with the next slide i won't dwell
on this it's on pages 14 and 15 of our
brief but citizens do have a right to
rely upon the rules of the city's bees
act that's a right of procedural due
process
citizens do have a right to be free from
arbitrary zoning decisions not based
upon evidence that's substantive due
process and homeowners in the city have
the right to be treated the same as
similarly situated property owners
many homeowners have been granted this
variance
again i don't think there's any need to
dwell on this because if this appear
because this appeal is warranted on the
merits and these are non-issues if um
if uh this appeal is sustained so very
briefly i do want to take just a minute
i know my time is brief to talk about
why this is a unique case
sustaining this appeal is entirely
appropriate under your code
it's been my privilege to appear before
you this board the board of zoning
appeals and the arb in the past but
never have i seen a case
with circumstances so unique and
compelling to warrant counsel granting
this appeal as we have here bees app did
not act in accordance with its rules
what is more and this is important these
app did not address the factors for a
variance at all and in fact prohibited
the applicant from doing so so under
your code you are not substituting your
judgment for bzap you're actually
addressing entitlement to the variance
under the factors in the first instance
so too there are no findings and
conclusions of b zap in this matter to
which you need to defer
the record of action contains no
findings or conclusions as to why a
variance was denied it is perfectly
appropriate under your code to sustain
this appeal
and finally there was testimony that
there's not another lot like this in the
city you won't see a similar case like
this where variances have been granted
all around it city council previously
granted a variance for this property
the only evidence in the record again is
that the factors will be met
without this appeal being sustained this
property owner their family is put in an
entirely untenable proposition in an
untenable position
the pool's placement and design was
lauded at the arb it was fully
considered and i don't think it's a
stretch to say its location was
effusibly praised by that board and yet
then it was deemed arbitrarily
unacceptable by three members of dzap
not a majority just the three members
that happened to be there that night now
fortunately for alex and adam you can
make this right the code allows council
to do that in this very type of you
situation this unique matter i thank you
for your careful consideration and we
ask that you do just that by sustaining
this appeal thank you
thank you mr miller
next we'll hear from the
um
[Music]
or
mr ms hadley you're here
okay
i have to say at the outset
i'm
in an awkward position i'm defending
what the bzap board did
i'm the neighbor
who opposed the application
so i can't speak for b's app
i have to speak for myself
and then refer to the record
when i refer to what b's app reasoning
or rationale is
so excuse me if i
go back and forth from my
perspective to bees apps but i can't
really put words in their mouth so just
at the outset
i want to start at the beginning
by going back to december december was
the first meeting where this was
heard
at that meeting there was an over an
hour of discussion
by all parties including the applicant
and
us
um the
the neighbors in a in opposition
after over an hour of discussion
chairman b hall
recused himself due to
his perceived conflict and he frankly
said i didn't realize this was going to
be so contentious
i would have
cut this off at the beginning
and knowing that there were only three
other board members there it had to be
tabled
so that's what happened at the first
meeting but there was an over an hour
of testimony given in december
okay
january and february got
coveted postponed and i think in
february nate couldn't be there so
this got delayed till march
at the march meeting
after an hour and 41 minutes and you can
refer to the record the video shows that
after an hour and 41 minutes
of debate discussion presentations
testimony
the application for the pool and the
pool house is tabled
two members of the board made it clear
that they would not approve the proposed
location of the pool
said it was too close to the lot line
they made that clear to the to the
applicant and asked the applicant if
they wanted to go ahead and vote
or table it so the applicant could go
back to the owners
and ask the owners if they would
consider moving the location of the pool
and the applicant the architect said yes
we will we will table they volunteered
at the table
the application
uh decision at that time
in april
um
again
the at that at that meeting the
uh
time
was limited because
frankly
the zoning board was a little
upset
for other applicants that had to wait an
hour and 41 minutes at the first at the
march meeting before their cases could
be heard so they wanted to limit
the testimony on this case and they did
do that so joe's correct
we were limited
by the way to six minutes three minutes
a piece
the applicant was limited to six minutes
but then got to get up and rebut
everything that we said and went on for
about 20 minutes and again referred to
the record on this went on for about 20
minutes and we were not allowed to get
up agai a second time we were limited to
two three-minute
arguments at the april meeting
okay
so uh it became clear
to the board several board members
asked the architect directly is this the
only location that you're willing to
consider
you will not move the pool
at all
and the applicant said yes the owner
is adamant that
this is the location for the pool
and they will not move it
and at that point a vote was taken and
it was defeated three to two
and you can hear on the record
uh chairman marsh who again was filling
in for chairman b hollywood recused
himself
chairman vice chairman marsh stated
at the
conclusion of the vote it's too close to
the line
it was very clear
in the march meeting
in the april meeting
that the zoning board was not opposed to
the pool of the pool house
so for them to say
you've denied them a pool in the pool
house is false
it's just incorrect
the zoning board made it very clear that
the only objection
was the location
of the pool
and location in these variances is
everything right because you've got a
non-standard lot
you've got neighbors you know to worry
about you've got the public looking at
it from the street
location is everything if this
pool and cool house weren't screened
from clifton
there wouldn't be any argument about
this they they'd know they wouldn't get
a variance
it has to be invisible from the street
to be approved as a pool in a front yard
there are no pools in the front yard and
back
anywhere
the corner lot pools yes but if you look
at the corner lot exhibits
and
um
ben are you able to pull up exhibit one
which is the corner lot pools
is it this exhibit right here
yes um but there are more slides and and
i would refer each of you to the there's
a slide deck that has each home
um i will try and list it if you can
find that
but i would tell you it's um exhibit one
right there is everyone
down
okay start okay let's start with 80
northwest
you can see where drexel is i'm sorry
yeah you can see where drexel is
from the front of the house and you can
see where the pool is
the background
okay so he hasn't performed
[Music]
kitchen window
and our pool is 7 by 10
so you might not be able to see it even
if it was it's
a plunge pool it's pretty small
it looks like a fountain looks pretty
small it's like it's used as a it's used
in the fountain but you'll see
colombians on the left
are pulled behind them
this is our name
and you can see where
commonwealth parks out and that's the
front of the house
wow their pool's pretty close to our lot
but nothing we can do about it because
that pool was there before we moved in
so i can't object to that pool because
it was already there friend howling has
to put that in
but you can see it's not in the front
yard that's a quarter left hole not in
the front yard next slide
64 stanberry so stanberry is on the left
here
the house you can see well treed but the
pool
behind
right
behind the house not
that is a corner lot type of base on
that little circle there
but it's not the front yard next line
uh this one
let's see parkview is on the left here
you can see the house kind of surrounds
the pool
but the house or the pool's clearly
behind the
behind the house next line
168 south drexel and i'm trying to get
drexel
i guess on the left here you see the
house you see the pool tucked away back
in the corner
not the front yard okay corner lot but
the pool's in the backyard next slide
uh
190 south drexel
and again house drexels facing
the house pulls away in the back
way
next slide
this one's mislabeled because it's
actually a part view address
and
um parkview is on the right here i
believe
this is actually 195 parkview there's a
big driveway there and you can see the
pool i think this is glancers maybe i
can't remember i know it's not clinchers
because it's working anyway you can see
the pool sits behind
uh
and that's lack of lanes i guess i'm
sorry that's why
yeah
so the pool's behind the house
block lot line it's a corner lot but
it's not up
i think that's all of them and thank you
go to the next one for another one
okay
so
the idea that other people got to put a
pool in the front yard is not true you
know these corner lots got variances but
none of us in the front yard so that's a
substantial
variation in my opinion
um
ben if i can get you again um
i want to answer the question of why 10
feet
why are we just asking for 10 feet
if you could pull up exhibit six
and if you could scroll up
okay
the argument that the pool is 18 feet
from our lot line is
misleading
the pool water
is atp from our left line
the pool vent the structure
the proposed sculpture
below that's 6.55 feet and i point to
the corner
closest to our lot line
and that's identified in drawings and
it's 6.55 feet
yeah you blow that up and you can see
there's room for one green giant
and one harbor biting
between our lot line our fence there and
you can see where the heart's taping
i can't plant screening
okay screening can only go in
where you have soil
and you have proper drainage
you can't plant hard skating plant uh
armor biting and brain giants and hard
skin so yes i misspoke when i said five
feet
you know it's 6.55 feet
the hardest tape was 6.55 feet from my
lot line
now when you look at clifton
look at the rows and rows and rows of
screening and we want that because the
people on the street don't want to see
the back of a full house and that's why
are being praised
because there's lots of screening there
now look at the screening that they're
putting in for their own property
mountain evergreens two rows of mountain
evergreens
where are those oak trees and where's
the
threat of the oak trees when you're
putting in two rows of mound and
evergreens
to the east so that the people in the
house don't see the pool from the other
side
and the people from drexel don't see the
pool
so everybody is getting
double layers of screening
except the hadleys who get one herbivity
and one green diamond
okay so
my argument is give us ten feet
and we can get similar screening to
what's on clifton we can get similar
screening to what's in our own yard
and
try to
hold the screening last because
frankly
this is kind of a dangerous slippery
slope to get into
to rely on
landscape
to be the barrier plants can't last
forever
we've had spruces
along this
along this um
wall here or along our fence
that died because of poor drainage and
that's on us but
the area that you're seeing now
when there's a heavy rain it's a pool of
water
now that's all going to be taken up with
a
presumably with a pool somewhere
how that's going to drain is a concern
to us
they've added 3 000 square feet to the
house and now they're adding a lot of
hardscape
and where's the runoff i mean where's
the drainage and how's our landscaping
going
so
the big concern on our part
um
the idea that moving the pool 10 feet is
infeasible
i've kind of debunked that
the drawings here you can see how much
room they've got when they to the east
we're asking the movement 10 feet to the
east
you see how much room they've got to the
east because they're putting in two rows
of mountain dew
that's got to take more than 10 feet
folks um another brilliant idea would be
don't move the pool at all
make it 16 by 40.
it would still be the biggest school in
bexley but you could have a 16 by 40
pool and not move the eastern edge at
all
and you still have the 17 foot spa
getting around
so you have a 17 by
57 pool
instead of a 17 by a 60
cent so to say that there's no other
method around this and plasma i'm sorry
i'm laughing
inside
to say that there's no other way
to get around the architecture of this
is a joke
there's plenty of room this is a 300
foot lot
300 foot lot and they say they can't
move the 10 feet
that's what we're talking about
so i want to re-emphasize that the
zoning board made it clear to them they
were not opposed to the pool
in the pool house
they made it clear
they said we don't like where it is
that was told to them at the march
meeting
that was told to them
after the vote at the april meeting
and i think that's i again i can't speak
for b's app it's in the record but i
think that's still a position of the
five uh
three of the five members who voted
against it
how's my how's my time just short of six
minutes six minutes thank you okay
um
why don't you go
cover for me okay while i
regroup
okay
we weren't able to go back and find this
slide but this is the overlay of
uh
in red
was the
original variance
for the henson pool um
i'm sorry leanne hadley
um yeah the so we've lived here for 22
years and have been
now four owners for this property but
sheree henson
um
as for a variance to put in a pool it
was a reflecting pool
and it was um
it was granted it was going to be an
english garden setting uh there was no
uh landscaping meeting uh it was really
in keeping with the architecture of the
home i know i think we would have all
enjoyed walking by and looking at it but
it does show in red is this
can i pass this around
is it
is that in the record
um the prior record it does not have a
slide deck for this video no i
understand so it's in the record with b
zaps so yeah this is not new this was in
our meeting they all have that document
all right so it was basically um if if
you can go back and look at it it's
shows you both pools the one that was
first um approved
in red
and um and it is
quite a bit to the east and to say that
this variance
was identical to the one and two of
seven in location it's not it's not it's
obvious and and the pool where it sits
um
they're getting uh closer to the roots
of those big trees on clifton than they
would get moving it over to the east of
those big trees so if they're concerned
about the roots of the large trees
that
they're concerned about some of the
large trees but apparently the ones
right here by the pool
they're not worried about and we're
worried about a big oak that sits at the
end of their driveway that
could go because of all the construction
so it is a considerable amount of
hardscape that's been added to this slot
at our lot line and when we get these
big
rains in bexley that cause havoc
that front yard over the last 22 years
can be a lake
and drainage is an issue so we are
concerned that if you build this
hardscape
6.5 feet away from our lot line
one row of
landscape probably
won't make it
with the limited amount of drainage
there
so um
in in the meetings
mr samson went into great detail of how
considerate
this applicant wanted to be to the
neighbors and the residents of bexley
and therefore they provided all that
screenage or screening on the clifton
side okay gotta jump in before it's too
late yeah
um these have did consider the seven
variance factors it was in the march
meeting it's the march record the seven
factors were read to all the board
members
that were comments
by the attorney and city catherine
cunningham read the seven variant
factors so they were considered
he commented on each one in fact on the
first one the property will not yield
adequately return absentee variance she
made the comment i'm not putting words
in her mouth you can read the record she
made the comment i don't think anybody's
arguing
that a poll is going to just you know
not having a pool is going to destroy
the value of the home
per words in the record um trying to
trying not to
again misclue anybody
variance is not substantial i think i've
argued that to death a pool in the
frontier is a huge
huge variation from what bexley does
we have
zoning in place to prohibit rules of
crime
so this is a big deal and that is the
front yard they can argue all day long
but it's their backyard it's planted as
the front yard it's planted the clifton
sews our house we had to deal with that
they've got to deal with it
we can deal with it by moving the pooled
country
or if we're not asking them to cancel
all their plans
and
ruin their dreams of a pool and a pool
house we're just asking them to be moved
um mark just cut me off with one of my
times so we have one thank you
very much consistent with the character
of the neighborhood and neighbors will
not be adversely impacted or adversely
impacted
all that size is going to have large
parties a lot of noise we know that to
be we've lived
to say that we're speculating that's not
true we've lived that we have neighbors
and pools we know what the noise is like
we deal with it but it's not something
we want
it's not something i'm going to advocate
for and say oh put that closer and put
your sound system in my case and then
we're not going to advocate the size and
scope of this it is in keeping with the
size of the mansion
the pool doesn't look out of place when
you put it in front of the mansion but
when you think about living with that
right at your backyard and it is our
backyard this was our front yard our
side yard you know the osu house
everybody that commented and said they
want to support this
they can sit in their backyard and not
look at that for having the last two
lions the predicament cannot be obviated
for some other
enough sanding on that
i mean
the other method would be have a 10 foot
smaller pool and move it to these i
think i've killed that
subject
um the spirit and intent of the zoning
code would be observed and substantial
justice will be done by granting variant
well in my case i'm asking for 10 cheats
if i if you come back and say no they
can put it right there in your face
i'm going to feel like that's not
justice for me
okay
i'm the one that's opposed nobody else
is opposed to it it's me
and my wife because we live in the six
point five five feet away
thank you
mr clint oh i'm sorry yeah no go ahead
thank you mr ms hadley for your time
appreciate it um
mr miller went slightly over but so did
mr hadley so i'm gonna suggest that the
three minutes that he originally asked
for seems reasonable if that's okay with
you reasonable sure thank you council
thank you mr chair
never before tonight had we heard any
concerns about drainage that is a first
that is not in the record that needs to
be disregarded both because it's not in
the record and it's addressed by your
bexley city building code nothing will
be built without an adequate drainage
plan
that is not the issue that was raised
what was raised was what mr hadley
mentioned a moment ago was noise this
concern that this family of young
children will somehow have unruly party
parties that is speculative that concern
is unsubstantiated with no evidence in
the record and in fact it's already
addressed by your city code
1464.09 deals specifically with noise
coming from swimming pools there is
redress there is a remedy it's already
in your code it's been there for nearly
60 years that you cannot have any noise
from a swimming pool
that
disturbs a noise injures or endangers
the comfort repose health piece or
safety of others if we could call up
exhibit four to our brief mr mayor i
would be grateful because
this 10 feet 10 feet it is arbitrary
there has been no evidence presented of
why 10 feet is necessary and why 10 feet
will ameliorate any concerns of the
neighbors instead
this applicant did everything but move
the pool this arbitrary 10 feet if we
look at the buffering along the western
side of the property i submit to you
that it's more substantial than along
clifton the clifton plantings that
they're pointing to are all low slung
until you get to the street and instead
if you could scroll through some of the
the pictures mr mayor associated with
this the plantings that will be along
that western edge as you see along the
left side
will be a wall will be opaque and that
is in addition to the wall itself that
we added and raised for these landowners
concerns uh as you saw in the visual
depicting a west
excuse me of you looking towards the
hadley's
you can't see the residents that's
clifton and if you scroll further
um
that is standing on alex and adam's
bless you property looking
at the hadley's where there is a
substantial tree line already today it
is in fact 110 feet or more from the
nearest corner of their home and so the
location is appropriate
it was appropriate in 2007 it's
appropriate today i would submit to you
that we have satisfied all the factors
for and of variance the only ones that i
potentially heard implicated were is it
substantial it's not for the reasons i
described and again is there a
substantial detriment to the hadley's
who enjoy this same variance i submit to
you
when that is constructed when those
mature plantings are installed it is not
uh and so
frankly the recitation of the other
homes that receive this variance we
agree on one thing
our home is in the back of the house or
excuse me the pool is proposed to be in
the back of the house just like all
those other properties and that's what
makes this so unique and so appropriate
for council to act in this regard this
lot
is the only one in the city configured
like this this is the only time you're
going to see a lot like this with a
variance previously granted by this body
for a pool in essentially the same
location and this is why your code
contemplates uh just because the six
factors were mentioned at bzap at one
meeting does not mean that they made
findings and conclusions as to why they
were denying the ease the variance it's
it's undeniable they did not the record
of action simply says no and so it is
appropriate for you instead to consider
those factors and use your judgment to
decide that this variance is not only
appropriate it is lawful and necessary
thank you
thank you mr miller and thank you again
to the hadley's we appreciate all of
your time here
um at this time do you have anything
else that we need to go over at this
time council
is going to go into deliberation we may
or may not have a decision tonight
but we will provide a decision to the
public it will need to be voted on at
our next meeting
so
we will be in touch soon
thank you
that's it
don't you take a vote to go into
deliberation
no okay
so technically the hearings uh the
hearing is
not adjourned it's um in recess
basically um city council will go and
deliberate um
if city cut it is possible again i want
to speak for i'm not trying to speak for
city council it is possible that they
could come out of
that meeting the meeting their
deliberations and announce a decision
without findings of fact and conclusions
of law or
what has happened in the past so
everyone knows is that those findings
affecting conclusions of law were voted
on at a subsequent meeting and if that's
the case then you'll all be notified
when that's going to be
if that's what you choose to do it
next city council meeting september 13th
just so you all know yeah my
recommendation is that you don't
announce anything tonight so that people
don't have to stick around and
do something in writing by the 13th if
you're able to do that or continue your
deliberations longer but that's
certainly up to council and how they
want to do it i think that's how we've
kind of come around to doing it
because we
had some very long deliberation evenings
and it was just we felt council felt it
wasn't fair for people to be sticking
around to just
hear a vote without any written decision
issue
i don't know that this is one of those
i'm not suggesting that it might be i'm
just saying yeah well
historically right are you okay with
that or do you want to wait do you want
to deliberate and then
give folks an idea if there's going to
be a decision tonight or not it's up to
you totally no i think it's fair for
everyone to
to not hang around here it could you
know could go long could be short you
know so
um we'll deliberate and then we'll have
uh we'll have an announcement soon
but not tonight
thanks