i'd like to
have
the clerk call the roll please
thank you
the
minutes
were passed around from the march
meeting
and
let's do them
first does anybody have any
additions or modifications
subtractions
deletions
anything else
i have one suggestion and that is that
i think it should be noted on
item 6a
no yeah 6a
that uh
that i recused myself from that
hearing
uh because i was present but it doesn't
say what what happened and i think it
should say that other than that i i
don't have any uh
other suggestions so as amended do i
hear a motion to approve the march
24th
minutes so move thank you mr marsh
second second thank you mr ship
all in favor say aye
all opposed
hearing none the motion passes and the
march minutes are approved
we have also
uh got the february minutes to approve
and they were sent around here this
afternoon did everybody get a chance to
check those out of course if you weren't
here that's hard to
know that they're
but anybody have any
problems or additions
modifications they'd like to suggest
all right seeing none i would entertain
a motion to approve the february 2022
minutes so moved thank you thank you ms
mitchell
all in favor say aye
aye all opposed nay
eve
i'm sorry
what's going on okay we have an
abstention from mr turner please
i need you to hold on for one second
certainly
chairman b hall
i just double checked that
she said i could go ahead and vote i
wasn't at the february meeting either
and i just voted to accept the minutes
for february okay if you weren't here
and you can't compare the notes to the
actual occurrence i think you you
probably should abstain as well you only
make a motion for me to correct mine but
you you can just to let us know that you
you uh because i did a i can do a roll
call vote and maybe we should do is take
a roll call though okay i'll take a vote
for this february minute were you here
for that one
i thought you could approve the minutes
even if you weren't here yes
that's what she told me but then we're
we're saying it's hard to approve them
if you weren't here to see the action i
don't know
i will i will
i just don't know what the rules are
sorry all right let me make sure mr
schick votes yes
well
well i tell you what let's
table
the february minutes until people can
review them by looking at the videotape
and then we'll have a vote because i i
don't think we're going to get four
votes here kurt wasn't there sean wasn't
there
and i was and you weren't there that
doesn't leave us enough a quorum to uh
to vote on that issue
but we will do so then and put it on the
agenda for the
may meeting please
all right there's uh
the
mexican city code provides for the
opportunity for the public to make
comments about the operation of the
board of zoning and planning
the way we hold the meetings what we're
doing in general
and
anybody who wishes to make a public
comment please raise your hand and
we'll recognize you this is not
discussion about any particular case
you're not allowed to talk about a case
just about things in general and and how
the uh these app is run
i did see one hand there sir
okay
a particular case yeah we can't listen
to a comment about a particular case
if that case is on tonight's docket you
will yeah
yes
and i saw another hand back there maybe
or did i not okay
oh same position okay
very good
so i see no other hands and with that
we'll move on to the
staff reports
let's see we've got the minutes
all right so we're into
i'm looking at the at the
i have two versions here they don't seem
to be
jiving which
case is the staff expecting to call
first is it
what's up on on theirs okay thank you i
can i didn't see that all right this is
the this is case
21-3
involving 18 north ashburn
the applicant
is
well the appellant actually in this case
is joseph ridgeway
uh who lives at 30 north
ashburn
uh the applicant
is appealing the decision of the city
staff regard to defense permit
application f 21-82
now
this is a procedural
situation we
agreed to take jurisdiction of this case
in the
february meeting
right okay
at the
march meeting
there was a motion by one of the members
of the board to reconsider that decision
and that as i recall passed
uh three to two
and so we're here to reconsider whether
the board
has
jurisdiction over this matter and i
think uh mr officials here and ms
cunningham are here to discuss the some
of the more legalistic
uh aspects of this
particular decision
so
i don't know does one of you want to
maybe give us a little briefing on your
perspective absolutely so and and i know
um i had sent a letter that i
collaborated with miss cunningham on um
back before i think before the february
meeting regarding my opinion on whether
or not bisep has jurisdiction to hear
this appeal and specifically um in a
nutshell um as i said in my opinion
you do not
because there is nothing in the
city ordinances or code that requires
any notice uh to neighbors as
similar to let's say a uh variance
that somebody's applying for um the i'm
not going to have the letter up here in
front of me but i'm not going to get the
exact dates off the top of my head
correct but so what happened was a
the applicant at 18 um
ashford north ashborne um applied for a
a permit to put up a fence that permit
was granted because it was all done
consistent with city code
ms rose has the authority under our code
to grant that permit um it does not have
to come to be zap with any
recommendation or anything of the sort
um
approximately
30 to 45 days later after the fence was
already put up consistent with the
permit uh dr ridgeway contacted ms rose
um and
long story short again ms rose can speak
to us herself she told him that uh that
if he didn't like what she was saying
that he could come to this board of
course ms rose just like mark official
or catherine cunningham or bob b hall
none of us have the authority to grant
jurisdiction on uh of an appeal let
alone the appeal of a verbal statement
of no that that was my decision so go
appeal if you don't like it so the
bottom line is the ordinances and city
council through its ordinances has never
given bizap the authority to hear an
appeal on a permit matter such as this
and um i could get into more detail if
you folks feel i need to but the bottom
you just don't have jurisdiction to hear
this appeal and if you do hear the
appeal i'm afraid that you will be
unlawfully interfering with the
homeowners rights who followed the
proper process got the permit and
has now put up that fence consistent
with that permit so again my
recommendation and my opinion to you
previously is that this the appeal or us
attempted appeal uh should be rejected
by a motion and vote of this board
ms cunningham just so we know we're now
getting opinions from the city attorney
the elected official city attorney and
catherine cunningham is the outside
counsel hired by the city to
help with zoning
matters primarily
and so that's why we have
enlisted her aid here because she unlike
mr fischer who does lots of areas of law
uh ms cunningham does pretty much zoning
somehow she managed to earn a living
doing only zoning law unbelievable
[Laughter]
i do a lot of it that's for sure you do
a lot of it there's no doubt about it so
do you have an opinion that is different
than mr officials no no mr official and
i collaborated in fact ms rose uh
contacted me about the issue too and
from
um mr official is absolutely right about
what the code says it does provide for
an appeal from a decision of the zoning
officer that's in writing
there was no written decision of the
zoning officer here other than the
decision to issue the permit
i understand that the property owner
disagrees that the
defense is in compliance with the zoning
code
ms rose did
speak with
mr ridgway
she did
review the materials he sent she did
inspect the property and inspect the
fence and in her opinion it was in
compliance with the code so at that
point in time you know it had it not
been
um and she would receive a complaint the
typical process that the city would then
take is they would issue a stop work
order and a notice of violation you've
heard those before too when we've had
those going on right
when somebody needs to change something
because it did not comply with code but
in this case
city staff determined
that the they felt that the application
did was in compliance with the code that
the structure that was erected didn't
comply with the code and so when a
complaint was made by a neighbor which
was a telephone conversation with the
the um zoning officer as they're
certainly permitted to have
um there that really
the decision was still a permit had been
issued and what was constructed was in
her opinion in compliance with the code
so there was no enforcement action taken
no notice of violation sent which would
be the normal course if if something was
not in compliance
so thank you so
uh just to give some background as to
how that this came down
uh there were four members of the border
here that evening just so happens all
four members were lawyers now that has
never happened that i can recall
but
we put the code sections up on the
screen and we actually read the code
sections which seem to give
[Music]
the citizens a 10-day window of time in
which to
uh file an appeal
and
the the sort of the issue that was and
you can all read the transcript but uh
mr schick was here i think i was here
uh i don't think anybody missed
miss doran
miss dorne was here and who was the
fourth
who
oh rick levine yeah okay so uh
it's hard to get you know
with four lawyers in the room usually i
have seven opinions but we somehow uh
voted and uh
the
it seemed like the way the statutes read
to the four lawyers who were reading it
that night indicated that um
that you have 10 days from some point in
time in which in which to file an appeal
that's still the case and that's still
the way the statute reads and it's also
true that if you apply for a permit to
build a fence and you are turned down by
the city
you then have 10 days to file your your
complaint or your appeal of that
decision
so the 10 days is a viable part of the
statute
and
i think that we were scrambling trying
to figure out where where does the 10
days apply to
and
we we said it couldn't apply to the
issuance of the permit because neighbors
don't get notification of permits and my
god how many permits does actually issue
in one year we can't have an appellate
process for every single permit that's
issued nonetheless
we decided to vote on whether to take
the case or not and that night the vote
was four to zip
and we ended up taking jurisdiction
we came to the next meeting
there was further discussion
about that uh case
uh and a board member i can't remember
who right now but maybe it was mr marsh
i can't remember but somebody made a
motion to reconsider our decision to
take the case
and that passed three to two which was
adequate so
i think the issue tonight is
do we
uh i think it's the same issue we had
before it's a reconsidered motion so do
we take jurisdiction in this case or not
which is why i asked the city attorney
to come and i uh i'm glad ms cunningham
is here tonight to give us their
perspective on how the zoning statutes
work and how they
apply to situations like this
so
one the other thing that that i should
mention is because we're going to hear
there's a lot of people here tonight
that we have
as a board decided the last meeting to
limit timing as city council does
that a presenter
of a
request for variance or any kind of
special permit or approval by the board
of zoning and planning would have five
minutes to speak
after the city gives us the staff report
and that anybody that's here to speak
pro or con
any particular application would have
three minutes those could be linked in
by questions from the board or by vote
of the board if we
are in a situation where we think it's
appropriate so that will apply to all of
tonight's
cases um
i think that
on the issue of whether we should take
the appeal or not i think the appellant
probably ought to have an alternative of
making a presentation
uh doctors here tonight so uh
if you'd like to come forward and
make a presentation you can't
be considering
nobody notified me because we were going
to we you know obligated for
a better term that decision
so you know i'm sitting there prepared
to present the case not to re-argue what
we spent an hour and a half or two but
you'll have to come up and you have to
you have to speak into the microphone
because this is on the record and and be
sworn in please yeah and you have to be
sworn in
you swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give will be the truth
old truth and nothing but the truth i do
thank you very much doctor so you know
as of now this is
news to me that we're reconsidering
the decision that was made
in february's meeting
to this case should be heard you know it
was discussed
at great length i think we were
here over an hour and a half
it was four to nothing
in favor of and nobody notified me that
this was anything other than presenting
my actual appeal
so you know i suppose i can
have the same discussion again but i
think it's sort of unfair that this is
happening in this transpiring in this
fashion
yeah i mean i i understand if you want
to if you want to discuss
a jurisdictional issue like this you
probably
ought to be able to have counsel
for one thing
now
uh the issues i don't understand how
this can be has to be relitigated when
it's it's it's
well there's just provisions in the
statute that allow a board member to ask
the board to reconsider a prior any
prior decision that's made and why was i
not notified that i don't know
that i don't know
but
uh let me ask how many people are here
today on this case this is uh involves
uh
i forget the address i'm sorry 18
ashbourne north ashborne is anybody two
of you are here on this case
okay
i'm sorry did he say he did not receive
a notice correct
we did send notice out um
i received
not that we would be re-litigating the
decision to hear this hear the actual
case
i received notice of an appeal
well i was here i'm here to present the
case because we decided two months ago
that this case would be heard for
nothing was the vote right and therefore
that's what i'm here to do i received
notice of that i did not receive any
indication from you that we would have
to re-argue
what was pretty clearly argued
previously i mean it's on the record
it's on the record you know
i mean
i i would be
if
i would be
prone to say that he should as the
appellant should have been notified that
the issue of whether to take the appeal
or not was going to be re-heard
so i think the fair thing to do and of
course i'm not the decision-maker the
board has to decide but i would
suggest that
maybe we table
this
hearing
on whether
the motion or table the motion to
reconsider in other words
to the next month it's what offense is
already up i mean it's not you know it's
it's not like somebody's got to tear
something down waiting 30 days
emotions already been made to reconsider
i can't undo that okay but i do think
it's unfair for you not to have noticed
that this was going to be the issue
tonight as opposed to is the fence
appropriate or not right yeah i mean
i've prepared 99 skills yeah i
understand yeah
so
i mean we can spend two more hours doing
the same thing we did in february well
but let me well first of all we're not
going to spend two hours because
everybody's going to be time limited
this time plus we we all know the issues
and we can look at the statutes again
but
i would suggest
and i would certainly entertain a motion
to table the motion to reconsider
so moved i don't think i think he should
have a proper notice
there a second
here's a second all right
call the roll if you would ms rose uh
miss mitchell yes mr shayk
no
mr marsh no mr turner yes mr west select
chairman
i vote yes
how'd that vote turn out i didn't count
them and say what happened three three
three to three
so the motion fails if it doesn't happen
that's right yeah
yeah three if it was a three to three
one two three four five six yeah we have
six votes okay three to three
it fails
so the the issue is going to be do you
wish to
discuss the jurisdictional issue whether
we have
uh
jurisdiction or not as opposed to what
as opposed to we don't have jurisdiction
we can't take the case well let's
discuss it now let's let's go you're
you've got five minutes to tell us what
you think it's just off the top of them
is there another case it can go first
and then we'll just come back to this
case
that's all right with me yeah right yeah
i think that makes sense is that all
right with everybody
yeah
but i think this is true he said once
well but if the jurisdictional issue is
something he probably needs to look at
the statutes on to be fair enough
i think
it's all
argument about what the statute said and
didn't say that night i think it should
be the same
so
let's
folks if are you okay if we move this
down the line are you here to discuss
the the actual case or the
jurisdictional part of the case
you're the homeowners you're you're 20
you're 30 north ashbourne
you're 18. i'm sorry you're 30.
got it
okay
uh
i think uh that
in view of the
nature of the motion that's pending that
it would be fair to give the appellant
uh some time to get his argument
together so if you don't mind waiting
for a couple cases
it just so happens this was the first
case it could have been the last case
and you'd be here at 10 o'clock waiting
for this so i think it's fair to give
him some time
so no objection to that then we'll call
the next case which is
a case involving
uh
81 north drexel is that correct
okay
so this is uh case b z ap 21-47 and this
is a case that i have to recuse myself
from
so mr marsh if you will take over i
appreciate it i will i will take over
thank you
if you could please be sworn in
please state your name
i just wanted to point out that we are
going to be doing time limits tonight
so every presenter will have five
minutes and anybody who is here to
testify
um
from the audience will have three
minutes perfect thank you so i will try
to be as gentle as i can but i'll let
you know that's fine
yeah just give them give them a warning
yeah
is there is there any uh
i know this has been uh we had this at
the last meeting is there any additional
staff report on
this i i'll just before i before we get
into the
the
city attorney's um report or
kathy's report i would just say that
just to repeat that the architecture was
recommended unanimously um
if approved by this board got it
then ms cunningham do you want to
comment on this one sure i guess
yes sorry i was thinking kathy was gonna
do it but i yes i am giving the staff
report
so 81 north drexel this is the one
that's a little bit confusing
um because of the history of the site
really is is what the issue is
um we did have in this in this instance
there were several variances requested
but there were variances historically
granted on the property the one of the
variances related to the perimeter fence
and that was dealt with by this board at
the last meeting and a final
determination was made on that issue
so that variance and the perimeter funds
relating to this property has been
resolved by this board you did maintain
jurisdiction to
conclude the other issues that were
before the board one of them was the uh
location of the pool
there was some discussion about that
as it relates to this property that does
require a variance
um because that is
that is um
well let me back up
the existing condition of this property
is i
i think that there was a discussion
about
setbacks and i think the board did make
a decision as it related to setbacks
because there were only two properties
in this block and under the statute
it looks at setbacks in terms of
multiple properties three down and there
just wasn't a good example of that and
you have different facing homes and so
um the board i think made a
determination that it was going to
proceed on the variance route rather
than on whether or not a special permit
be granted and historically that was
true on this site there is if there's a
certain variance between existing
setbacks and two properties there is a
special permit provision
but because of the nature of this block
and the combined use of all of these
lots i think the board determined that
what we're going to do is just look at
it as a setback variance just generally
as it relates to this site and as it
relates to to the pool that is on the
west side of the property so that
remains an existing uh condition that
remains a request from the applicant and
that remains before the board uh you may
recall your discussions there were some
discussions about should it be moved
should it be relocated should be pushed
this way or the other and um so that
issue remains before you for
determination today
there were also discussions about the
pool house the location of the pool
house uh which is between proposed
between the the the swimming pool and
the proposed swimming pool and clifton
avenue there were some discussions about
that and that remained an open item for
your determination about whether or not
that should um be there and
need a variance it does need a variance
if it is going to be there
um so that those were sort of the the
main existing conditions
and i
don't recall whether we got to and kathy
and karen you'll have to remind me
whether we got to there were there were
issues relating to the columns and the
fence that are on north drexel on the
north drexel side was that part of the
findings and conclusions that went
before the board
that was that was okay
so i think the main two things left
really are about the pool
and the pool house structure that are on
the west side of the property um most of
the other things relating to variances
that have been requested
have been resolved by this board
okay thank you
if you'd like to go ahead and present
thank you very much um i'm gonna try and
be brief for the time uh limitation also
out of respect for everyone's time the
other speakers tonight i just wanted to
cover uh
uh some bullet points about uh the
consideration from this for this project
as far as the site plan and location uh
of the pool and pool house that we've
been discussing uh on a couple of
occasions
you know we are in certainly an uncommon
condition here where you know based on
the plating of this lot or these
assembled lots
uh the property does not necessarily
have a rear yard um
for context you know lots of this size
and actually there may be a dozen of
them
um side facing homes which is not
uncommon but maybe you know half a dozen
of those
but also having those conditions both on
a corner lot
we're looking at the only example in the
city that has that then that's just to
sort of uh specify that this is
certainly a unique case and um one that
the variance process is built uh to
consider
so
as this is a unique request and knowing
that from the start you know we are
requesting a variance from uh the zoning
code
so as we approach this site plan and the
plans for the pool and the pavilion you
know
i want to go through some of the
considerations made up to this point
you know uh the accessory structure size
limitation is 35 of primary structure
footprint
um where the what we're proposing for
the pool pavilion is 44 of that maximum
less than half
um the proposed pool pavilion with
allowable is 40
of the width of the lot
um we're at 48
of that limit so again less than half of
what is allowed by code
um accessory location
certainly our accessory use location and
you know certainly we're here to talk
about that you know there's not space in
what is considered the rear yard of this
property so we are we're trying to
propose a meaningful and sensitive
location for it to be
located in what is considered the front
yard
uh
as far as accessory structure program
uh the pool pavilion certainly meets
that by having two of the three program
elements which is a powder room and a
sort of outdoor kitchen area
also accessory structures you know in
the zoning code must be at least three
feet from the property line and when we
look at the pool pavilion here you know
as it sits we are over five times that
distance from the property line
um
proposed pool pavilion
for this r2 zoning district
no taller than 25 percent or 25 feet
allowable we're at just over 10 feet so
again half of what
is considered allowable in that zoning
area
the eave height again you know allowed
to be 14 feet tall in this area um we're
at 86 less than half the size that's
allowed
um
and then
combined those accessory uses are not
allowed to be more than 60 percent a lot
width i think combined now we're at 30
percent with the pool width and the pool
plane width so considerations for that
pavilion and what
in the space that's a that's available
to us
nearly
half or less than half of the allowable
size and footprint um for the r2 zoning
the swimming pool itself
you know we are looking at a swimming
pool in this site plan that's
you know
less than three quarters of the
allowable width
for the site size and the primary
structure size um
the proposed swimming pool location
you know we are
permitted to be
eight feet or further from the property
line
um
right now our pool deck is just under 10
feet away from the property line
uh
and since it's on an angle goes from 10
feet to about 18 and a half feet on the
north side
pool itself is 18 and a half feet to 22
feet from the property line based on
uh the sighting as it lies today
um can you go to the
slide
the site slides yeah
and get to this
okay that's good
um
in addition
uh to those considerations going into
the design uh
of what we're proposing what is
allowable you know the
zoning code does not require any
screening for a pool or poop pavilion
where it is
wherever it's located relative to a
neighbor
we're proposing extensive screening
can you go to the next one karen
on all three sides that are exposed uh
to both the neighbors in the street and
the public right of way
there is also on the west side of the
pool as part of the design a four foot
eight inch uh masonry wall that offers
additional screening and protection for
both noise uh and visual
connection to the neighbors to the west
um
and based you know on various the same
lot conditions um as we've discussed
before a pool
was
uh
allowed uh in a front accessory used in
the front yard um previously
so
in going through these conversations
with you certainly understanding the
neighbors concerns as well uh we went
over this week and talked to them trying
to understand their concerns uh in a
more focused way so that we were not
making adjustments in
the design we wanted to make meaningful
adjustments that
is mutually sort of beneficial to both
our clients and the neighbors
so
in from that conversation which i
appreciate your time you're gonna need
to wrap up yep i will we are proposing
to raise that uh masonry wall uh from
four foot eight to six feet tall which
the board will need to consider
um we're proposing to
change the audio system in that pool
pavilion to ground mounted and pointed
away from the neighbor's property
uh we are also proposing to move all of
the pool equipment uh away from that
property line up to the northeast corner
of the property line where the utility
uh enclosure area is yeah nothing is a
hundred percent perfect and nothing
nobody's gonna be 100
happy
with every decision but we feel that
these decisions along with our initial
uh development design are truly in the
spirit of the zoning code and the zoning
variants free to consider okay thank you
very much is there um is there anyone
here from the public that wishes to
speak to this item
um if let's do this since we have a
number of people if you could stand up
and raise your hand we'll just swear
everybody in at once
please state your names i'm gonna start
on this side of the room and we'll go to
the right
the testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth
yes thank you
and then um before we have uh people uh
speak does the board want to have any
discussion or any questions for the
applicant
from
yeah that's fine
yeah
got it
um let's just go ahead and we'll just go
uh down the line please come up and uh
with the microphone on give your name
you've already been sworn in and then if
you could just tell us where where you
live in relationship to the house
absolutely i mean and keep in mind we
have a three minute uh time limit is
that right
three minutes thank you very respectful
of that and thank you guys for the time
uh my name is alex tim i'm in the owner
of this property um or of the partner in
uh consecutive prime llc which is the
legal entity that owns the the structure
um you know first i'd like to say this
when we bought this house it was a house
that prior to this had been on the
market for four and a half years had
been before the previous owners had
purchased this house and it needed a lot
of work
and this is truly a passion project and
this is something we love we love the
neighborhood we love the community and
we've actually worked very closely with
the city and the city staff too along
the way and we've really appreciated
that both through the architectural
review process as well as the the zoning
process um
and you know really we're here to make
this our forever home we plan to live in
this for the next 50 years we have a
one-year-old and other
we plan to have more kids my husband and
i and you know that's really who this
pool is for uh it's not a party house by
any means this is really for our
children and to raise our family and
eventually our grandchildren uh i do
think uh you know one of the big
surprises to us
uh and i know this is one of the duncan
factors is did we know that this was the
front yard when we purchased the house
and the answer is no
uh and why is that well one we had
actually our first architect well we had
the prior owners tell us that this was
the backyard we had the first architect
that was on the property tell us this
was backyard second architect tell us
that our landscape architect tell us
that interior designers tell us that and
then alfred hopkins who's actually the
original architect of the house intended
this to be the backyard
in addition there's no front door if
this is the front yard the front door is
on the north side of the house
and so
uh you know the planning information
also unfortunately is not actually
readily available to the public uh it
was actually very difficult to find it's
not something that that's easy to look
up so unfortunately uh whether it was
reasonable or unreasonable to rely on
our experts um you know we did not know
that so
um you know that's why we're here today
uh you know we we certainly have have
met the other variances had this been a
backyard i don't believe there would be
a variance required um
and and so that's that's why we're here
today and we just want to um thank the
board for their time for their
consideration here um
and we we truly do believe that this is
both fitting with the neighborhood and
uh we'd be uh very excited to become
members of the bexley community so i
appreciate it thank you thank you very
much
uh whoever is next
good evening my name is christina
johnson and i live across the street on
the corner the other corner of clifton
and drexel
this is is a property
as alex said has been vacant for
four years
and to me that's a blight on the
neighborhood so i am very excited that
alex and adam be coming to the
neighborhood with their family
this is uh they're putting in a large
investment to try and renovate this
property
and the pool and the pavilion have been
tastefully designed
um there's a that's been set back
there's a nice screening of natural uh
trees
and i think it's very consistent with
the neighborhood and the surrounding
properties i appreciate that they've
worked with the neighbors like myself
uh to allay any concerns that we might
have and um
you know i have no objection to this
particular to this project so thank you
for your time appreciate being able to
say a few words tonight great thank you
uh
yep whoever's next sure
hi i'm leanne hadley and um this is my
husband tom we're the property
uh most affected
by this um
we are
the single no go back to what you head
up
the
single rows of trees there that's that's
our fence line
so um
it is a beautiful
pool but it's very large and i realized
that it is
in um scale with the mansion because the
the mansion is large it might even be
the largest structure in bexley
um and that pool has been pushed all the
way to our lot line
and nate went into great detail
as the
applicant
was very mindful and they pointed out
how respectful they were going to be to
the bexley community and the
layering of landscape that is on
all the sides except
the homeowner and the property that sits
most closely to it
and and what that is is our backyard
that is where we
go to spend
our quality time if this was across the
street in our front yard if it were in
our side yard we wouldn't be here
complaining
but we know the kind of noise whether
it's a corporate party
family party or just a family we know
how much noise a pool will produce
and we just feel like the consideration
and the the depth of layering of
landscape
that nate went over
along the clifton side
bordering the road and then the front
yards of those houses on clifton and
then even on drexel christine johnson
she can go to her backyard
and not be
right next to this
so that's what we're asking is the same
consideration
of
landscaping layering of landscaping and
moving the pool over so it's not right
on our property line
and they've got
300 feet to work with
and i know when they first proposed it
they said it was really important to
have the pool at the living space and i
know um kathy you said you had a pool
and you like to look at your kitchen
window as a safety factor well this is
all the way to the edge and it's not
even in front of their kitchen or their
family room it's in front of the guest
apartment so
um
it doesn't meet that so
all right without rehashing the last
meeting because my wife missed that but
all we asked was 10 feet
you know we we asked him to move it over
10 feet we asked nate yesterday at lunch
moving over 10 feet
he didn't even present it to the owners
that he had a month to present that to
the owners that never was presented
so we've got five feet and i've
argued with the amount of distance if
you look at the blue corner there that's
actually five feet from our fence line
that's not enough that's not enough
to plant
one three okay i'm sorry microphone
oh six is fine yes six minutes total
thank you
so
all we're asking for is ten feet
additional to the five feet so that we
can get the same layering of landscaping
that's on clifton
that's all we're asking okay now
and i i know that several of you
at the last meeting
at least three of you
agreed with that okay at the last
meeting i can i'll go back and get the
recording of it but
moving this 10 feet when you have 300
feet to work with
is not asking too much
and
as far as the rest of the project
you've got to decide if they've met the
criteria for a variance i don't think
they have there are seven criteria
if you look at the seven criteria in the
code
they have not met
even even two of them
so
look at the criteria
decide on the variance but at least give
us 10 feet i mean move it 10 feet away
that's all we're asking thanks
thank you
uh is there anyone else in the audience
to speak to this
item please come up
hi
my name is amy grace ullman i live at
2371
commonwealth park south
the entire back uh line of our property
shares uh a property line with with uh
the property we're discussing so
our entire backyard kind of backs up to
where their front door is
we are
thrilled to have a young family moving
in behind us
young couple
raising their kids in the bexley
community
planning to utilize the bexley public
school system their kids will be
marilyn mallards like
my kids here
we
know alex and adam to be
kind
and respectful people
we are thrilled to have them as
neighbors
um our time in bexley
in our time in bexley we
lived behind a house that was vacant for
almost four and a half years
um
the house was
in need of a lot of love and
it was going to take a really special
person to come along and give it what it
needed in my opinion
uh
somebody who had the passion
and
um
to to take on an enormous project like
this
and the resources and frankly i feel
like we as a bexley community um should
be we are at least very grateful that
they have decided to take this on
and uh invest their
uh time and treasure in this and also
just really genuinely
choose bexley as a place to
put down their roots
so we have seen the um the plans
we
are
you know think that the
like christina said they were very
tastefully done we appreciate that the
pool has been um is as close to the
house
you know as possible uh we appreciate
that the trees in the middle of the lot
have been preserved
we appreciate that they're going to be
putting in so much new landscaping
especially you know to screen
the the pool and structure
on the south side
and um
[Music]
we
have
no objections to the plans and we look
forward to hopefully getting this
project moving forward as soon as
possible
thank you
[Music]
thank you sure is there anyone else here
tonight we should speak to this
okay
any uh
i i would like to
read into the record
portions of a letter received from
craig and connie tuckerman this is a
notarized signatures
which states that our family lives at 52
north columbia avenue which is directly
across clifton to the south of the
huntington home both my wife connie and
i fully support the request by our
neighbors to seek the necessary variance
in order to complete the remodeling and
upgraded venture
while we do understand and appreciate
there are concerns by some neighbors we
believe the benefits of this remodel and
addition both dramatically outweigh the
perceived negatives
and there's more to the letter now
that's perfect
thank you
um any board discussion
um i am curious about um because i know
we had requested
um
or you were going to sit down with
hadley's i believe and i appreciate all
the neighbors who think it's a great
idea but i'm most concerned about the
one that has the greatest impact
um
and i
am curious about where your discussion
led about moving the pool eastward
because we talked about that in the last
meeting
yeah no problem and i wanted to respond
to that as well the um you know in in
our conversation you know i think
there's
the issues that came up were issues that
both properties are concerned with and
it's mutual privacy and enjoyment of
their yards right and so what that comes
down to um is how is that related it's
it's visual you know screening and it's
sound you know protection between the
two and so you know we certainly relayed
you know the
a lot of options to our clients and to
the owners of this property um about
different ways to be able to achieve
that and i think that in
you know in
the one in the moves that i outlined
before
um
those are certainly ways
that achieve or go further in achieving
that
not necessarily moving the pool but
addressing the base concern of the noise
and
the visual connection by elevating that
masonry wall up to six feet by moving
the pool equipment and then if you go
down to the next slide as well on here
we're also noting that in the place
where the pool equipment was to add
additional layering of planting within
that footprint that's the blue section
there yeah the blue line is the wall and
then the shaded section is where that
equipment was moved from that allowed us
to
present you know an opportunity for more
uh rows of screening in that area and
where did you move it to
the pool equipment it's in the north
west corner of the lot there's a utility
area that we've outlined previously and
in that corner if you go up to the first
slide it's colored in where that uh
proposed area would be that's the square
there
okay so although you know not
maybe fizzy or directly every
specific request was met we tried very
hard to address the concerns uh at their
root um
by taking on these additional uh
accommodations um and trying to work out
a way for those
concerns to be reduced right so to my
understanding in their testimony tonight
they asked for two things
ten feet
and more layering and you gave them
everything
but those two and so i'm just curious
you know i'm looking at all of the plans
from the last several times we've heard
this case um
i
and i understand that when they bought
the house it was really great to hear
the homeowner tonight
i can see where you would think that
this is the backyard
but i see the plans from 2007
the pool's quite westward
and then i hear someone say tonight that
the pool is not overlooking
like your living space it's overlooking
your guest's home right
um so
in the spirit of good neighbor
neighborliness
i'm still trying to figure out with 300
feet to work with
where
where the discussion if there was
discussion of a 10-foot move
so the pool and pool you know patio area
is overlooking the family room
space of the first floor right currently
the other items on the list that i left
the
hadley's with yesterday was
um
specifically there was five one was uh
changing or adapting the uh av audio
system around the pool which we've done
um second one was elevating the mastery
wall which to six feet which we proposed
to do third one was move the pool
equipment for noise concern which we've
done
uh the fourth and fifth was
pool reduction or the shift or move the
pool
right it was a request and then the idea
of possibly flipping the orientation of
the pool now
you know
we can't about a thousand on this but in
the base of that we are orientation of
the pool like turning it
yeah flipping
so you know
no
switching switching the sides so the spa
was farther away
from oh that's right the spa's down the
hadley's so they would actually prefer
to have the slide with the um closest to
their home rather than the hot tub um
closest to their home as it was proposed
here because the hot tub will be the
loud one versus
yeah okay i mean you know we've talked
about it before there's certainly zoning
or like sound ordinances you know pool
usernames in the city of x that control
a lot of those things about use but you
know out of that conversation you know
we
addressed three of the five
uh word for word and then as part in
addition to that you know
conceptualizing the using that area that
was for the pool equipment to add more
screening back in
um
for
you know that visual and sound buffering
um
was us just trying to find more ways to
address that base concern
you know all of these things around
visual connection and sound so if we can
do
as much as we can with that moving the
pool
is a minor part of a bigger plan to help
uh increase that mutual privacy and
mutual enjoyment of the studio arts
any any other board discussion or
questions
sure i think the other thing that's
important to note is there are three
large oak trees there and when we had an
arborist actually look at moving the
pool over which is our landscape
architect they actually are concerned
about those very large old oak trees
because those roots are
well they're massive
and so we wanted to keep those those are
been there for quite a while and we
thought
three out of five is is good and it
reflects compromise on both sides
if you go to the second side as well for
clarification uh for the board and zoom
out slightly we've color-coded uh the
plantings along both property lines now
clifton has a row of tall trees and then
low planting which for screening is the
same thing we're proposing on the west
property line but zoom out a little bit
okay not that far but
these trees that are colored here
and
these are
these are mature trees um i think that
they range in their conifer or their uh
deciduous
no conifers and then
so they're being planted between 12 and
18 feet tall
so we aren't planting saplings that come
along here and we're waiting for that
screen to happen
yeah there's a chart there that actually
outlines the size of the trees specified
for going in and i think 12 to 16 16 to
18 with the largest ones being in
between
directly adjacent to the end of the pool
and the neighbor's yard
so we're talking we're not talking about
waiting for the screen to happen
the screening and from the landscape
architect
there's space needed for those things to
stay healthy and you know stay alive and
so that's what's proposed here so those
those are huge trees that are going on
and and very um with diameters of
foliage you know up to
eight twelve
feet yes keep going down
it's a letter from the landscape
architect and then you know the types of
trees that are going in just as imagery
at you know
in the neighborhood of the height that
they will be planted
uh on day one
may i just add one piece i'm andrew will
trout council for the applicants um
i just wanted to say you know the
headleys spoke that this was their
backyard and this is where they enjoy
their space if this was a traditional
setting on a suburban lot you would
think that two backyards would be
adjacent to each other in which case
this pool would have to comply with the
setback requirements provided for
backyards uh and this pool would meet
every single one of them without the
additional screening without the fence
without moving the pool equipment to
accommodate the neighbors concerns we're
only talking about protections added for
the headleys because this is a pool
that's being placed in the quote-unquote
front yard of this property um bexley
code provides for setbacks for pools in
order to address and lay concerns from
neighbors such as noise and screening
and those are all met here it's just the
location of the pool that's in question
any other
board discussion
[Laughter]
thank you i i mean i i'll just i'll go
first i i'm just
you know i i understand
everything that's been presented and i
just think it is way too close
to that property line for the si the
size of the pool the size of the
um
cabana
and the fact that this
and i understand it's a it's an odd lot
and it's the house is oriented uh to the
north and it's a corner lot
but i just think given the size of the
lot
to put it i don't know six feet eight
inches that wall is like six feet eight
inches i think that's what it is off the
off that property line i just think it's
too close and i said that at the last
meeting and then i see it come back and
there's
you know some it's been changed but it
seems like it's just still right on top
of the of the one neighbor who's going
to be impacted the most it seems like
it's right on top of their property line
that that's what i see i'm only one
member but that's that's what i look at
when i see this
i don't know if any other members have
any other comments
i guess the question i'd have is um 11
to echo
you know what was discussed about moving
forward if you haven't given us a reason
why is that
like
i mean
he didn't give us a reason as to why the
pool's not built so why
what's the problem with moving at 10
feet
at this point
it's just
the owners that's where they want it and
that's which is fine if that's the
answer but i'm just wondering because
that was a consideration
wasn't even looked at sure well you know
at the start as we went through the
beginning of the presentation you know
knowing that we're here to ask for
something right based on how the slot is
planted
that even at that point we've far
exceeded the size the distance from the
lot line that's required for a pool uh
size of the pool pavilion size of the
pool all much reduced from what is
allowable for this footprint in this lot
you know and just clarifying that going
into sort of what we had presented
before as you know uh reasons for
its placement you know it is designed to
coordinate with that back of the house
in that area architecturally and you
know the uh arb you know recommended
unanimously for uh consideration uh by
this board uh for that for the design of
it the pavilion itself is only one-third
solid it's burglars on both sides so
it's you know not a strong visual
presence that close to the property line
there um
and in talking with the neighbors and
understanding their concerns
their concerns revolve around
you know the visual screening and the
sound right and i think that in doing
you know the number of things out of
that conversation that help those issues
you know
getting
stuck with the idea of physically moving
the pool
you know
that's one you know that's one way to
handle it there are other ways to handle
addressing those issues as well
so i think you know our intent is to you
know
move or propose this location uh because
it's meaningful with the architecture of
the building um
and
go to you know
uh pretty far lengths to make sure that
we are much smaller much
than required then allowed much further
than required
required from the property line and
additional measures um once we spoke to
the neighbors to understand specifically
what their concerns were so we weren't
arbitrarily doing something that maybe
isn't as important to them moving the
pool is one aspect of that but we're you
know we are
also weighing all the other aspects that
where that is the location that makes
the most sense and also the location is
embedded in the design that was approved
by the arb
and it's meaningful with the overall
design and it's also
the location where it is allows for the
greatest distance between that and the
other intersection which i think is
really desirable for the entire
character of the neighborhood and it
also
as my client said protects those very
large trees with very intense intensive
and large root structures
so i think you know there's lots of
considerations in where that's placed
and why it's placed and i think going
and you know having that discussion and
talking with the neighbors and trying to
further that effort um
that idea of moving the pool you know i
think we've done a lot to
dissuade some of those concerns without
moving the pool you know that's one item
in a long list of things that we can do
that we've uh presented tonight that
are considerations for
this request that we're making
any other board discussion
do you want me to elaborate on the
architecture of the discussion i just
wanted to correct one thing
thank you
there's no approval from architecture
review it's just a recommendation oh
thank you but there was since we're
discussing architecture i think it's
important to note that
there was discussion about it and it was
very positive
um the architecture view board had
was very involved in the
discussion of the addition and the way
this pool is placed given that it is 15
feet from the property
architecturally it does a line
between the two
peaks and just to be clear that all the
new is not just a
guest apartment there is a beautiful
dining area that overlooks and has an
in-n-out flow with the pool
so i i just i'm not presenting an
argument to her for the variance but i
want to be clear that the architectural
review board did discuss the
appropriateness of the placement from an
aesthetic perspective because it is
directly talking to the new
edition and how it was done and that is
the public part of the new video it's
not the bedroom
or the guest house or the mother-in-law
suite whatever you want to call it um it
is the public space yeah oh yeah so much
of it is
there's a dining room and an indoor
outdoor
elaborate flashlighting doors that open
up to and from and flow so i just want
to be clear that was one of the reasons
that the architect's review board was
very happy with the architect the
placement of the pool
from an aesthetic perspective
because it does have a great formal
relationship with the house and the
additions
that has nothing to do with the variance
but that's the that was the discussion
and the approval from arb for a
recommendation to the school man that's
a good question
do we have an obligation to
not just consider
uh architectural recommendations but
disparate impact to neighbors i mean
that's the whole reason we file notices
right that's the whole reason people
come and give their pro or their con so
i re like i get the house that's
gorgeous i told you that the first time
i heard the the case um
the plan is beautiful um you bought a
squiggly house in in essence right it's
it's
um placed weird on a plot and it's got
weird lines and you're working within
those
but i also understand
when your neighbor who's directly
impacted not your ones across the street
or around the corner
or whose back door faces the front i'm
talking the one that's sitting right
next to you is saying to you
hey this is great but can you bump it 10
feet
i you know
and i
i still haven't heard
whether or not you entertain that
conversation what i've heard is well we
did everything else
because we like where it's placed and
that to mr uh turner's point that if
that's the answer that's okay i just
want to hear that
okay yeah well so that idea you know
about
has been discussed with the owners the
design team the landscape architect and
they said no we don't want to move it
yes i think
the idea was that
through you know the the architecture
that presented to the arb and
relationship to the house that we wanted
to maintain that totally understand like
i totally understand the design
aesthetic
all of that i'm not really debating that
i'm really just trying to understand the
impact to your neighbor by not choosing
to do that that's all i'm trying to wrap
my head around
and and also i'd like to chime in from a
zoning perspective
the property to the west that sits on
the corner of columbia and commonwealth
or clifton
their
rear yard is actually to the north end
of their property
however their side yard
they used as a rear yard
and which is where they had a pool place
which required a variance because
they have to be in a rear yard so
so that's technically used as a rear
yard that property to the west and then
the property to the north that abuts
this property
their backyard is also to the north end
of this property
so
yeah the padding is weird it is it is
like if this was a corner lot we've
talked about this before
like every other corner lot where the
short end is the front
and the long end is the side
that we
you know we would it could be pushed
much much closer you know we're trying
to balance that out with and and try and
keep with what we do the intent of the
code which is internalize the pool from
a public perspective but also be
respected of the neighbors by balancing
that back out it looks close at this
point because it is a large yard as well
right um
but being 15 feet away from the property
line for the pool billion
nearly 20 for the actual water of the
pool which is another 110 feet from
their house
um
we're balancing a lot of things here and
it's
certainly an impact to the neighbors but
it's also a consideration for the
overall city of bexley and how you know
we balance out those considerations for
this
you know
sort of technically
and i saw you looking at those duncan
factors here and i just want to revisit
this well i i think we've had enough
testimony thank you so um
does the board
what's that
yeah unless anyone has a question
anymore
okay um do you want us to vote on this
tonight what would you like to do uh yes
we would request the photos okay um if
ms rose we can have the findings of fact
acts and conclusions of law read please
uh the findings of fact and conclusions
of the law for application number bzap
dash 21-47 for property located at 81
north drexel
upon consideration of the application
proposed variants and evidence and
testimony before at the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant area variants in big secret
section 122611c have been met in a
variance from bexley code section
1252.15 ga
to allow a swimming pool and pool
pavilion
in the
west front yard
at at this location
be approved
with the condition that ground mounted
speakers
and that the pool equipment be located
at the northeast corner
of the pole pavilion area
as
displayed and reviewed in plan number
could somebody read that number for me
please
zero
zero four two eight two two
zero four two eight two two dated april
twenty eighth twenty twenty two four
twenty eight thank you
and in accordance with well the
recommendation of the architectural
review boards
does there need to be a separate
variance for the wall
yeah okay and to allow the six foot high
brick wall
shown in that same plan
on the west end of this proposal
okay and does the app can understand the
findings of fact as read by ms rose
uh yes
any uh board discussion
does anyone want to make a motion
motion to approve do i hear a second
all right
if we have a roll call
mr schick yes
mr west select
yes
mr turner
no
miss mitchell no
chairman marsh no
uh we appreciate your application uh i
think the consensus was people loved the
design but i thought it was just too
close to the neighbor thank you
thank you
if mr b hall is back there somewhere
we'll go
we'll go ahead and get what's that
ran away yeah we'll go ahead and uh get
keep it moving here
the next application is 464
south parkview
if anyone
uh
if the applicant's here if they could
come up for this one so we're not going
to do the appeal oh yeah uh or is mark
even here let's get the other people
i know i need a break
there's mr b hall
all right how come i get the short
spaces and you guys get the long cases
you know
all right so i didn't i don't know if
you wanted to do 464 south parkview or
if you want to do 18 north ashborne i
think we should do 18 north ashborne
just to get the uh
to
yeah
just because uh
i would ask him
yeah he already mentioned to me in the
hallway what he so i i did ask that that
exact question
all right so let's go back now to the
uh case involving
uh
18 north ashburn thank you
and uh
the
appellant
dr ridgeway
um
you've already diced where are you in
tonight you did thank you all right
so
uh
the issue is should we take the
case take jurisdiction of this case or
not
correct
so
according in as we've argued this before
i'll go through this sort of as quickly
as possible okay um
so according to bexley city codified
ordinance 1220.02
okay i don't know if you want to put
that up for everybody or not but i'll
read what i have pulled from it
the bzap shall have the following powers
and duties okay duties
under the provisions of this zoning
ordinance
to hear and decide appeals from and to
review orders decisions or
determinations made by the zoning
officer or the architectural review
board
so it's the duty of this board
to
review ms rose's decisions
duty okay it's pretty clear duty
in fact on the website
accepts appeals to the bcap
of decisions by the
building and zoning director
so that's the duty of this board to
review her decisions repeat that code
section again sir please sure 1220.02
the last time we put it up on the screen
yeah
we're hold on i didn't realize that we
weren't all here i'm so sorry
oh no i i would have given you everybody
a break after that activity
uh
i'm sorry i didn't melissa i just didn't
see that you were you had left i repeat
that for ms mitchell yes yeah please um
i'd be happy too and also when when uh
miss
wilker gets back she can put some things
up on the screen perhaps
so
um what i stated was i basically
uh read from the code okay
this is according to bexley city
codified ordinance 1220.02
that the bzap shall have the following
powers and duties under the provisions
of this zoning
ordinance uh
and i emphasize duties okay powers and
duties under the provisions of this
zoning ordinance
to hear and decide appeals from and to
review orders decisions or
determinations made by the zoning
officer or the architectural review
board
and then i made the point that the
website actually accepts
these appeals
so it's pretty clear what the process is
and then we discussed putting 1220.02 up
on the screen
and she just did and there it is so
the pertinent part of it is what number
it's either l or i believe it's now
do you hold public hearings upon any of
the issues
there it is l
um
thank you
it's for you actually um so according to
l here to hear and decide appeals from
and review orders decisions or
determinations made by the zoning
officer
that's pretty clear but then the city
attorney says we didn't have
jurisdiction in the first place so i
right i made a note to ask this question
um
why did we hear the case in the first
place well we didn't
so we haven't even heard a case right
we're talking about whether you can hear
it in the first place that's what we've
been talking about we haven't listened
just so everybody knows where we are
procedurally
though
but if we don't have jurisdiction why
did it why did we well the question was
they came to us and the question was do
we have jurisdiction to take this case
and so we said
we're not going to listen to anything
about the fence we've never seen the
fence
okay we don't have any idea what this
case is about
from a substantial standpoint all right
the question was
since
the
permit was issued
the fence was built
pursuant to the to the permit
now the permit didn't say anything about
how the fence had to be built it just
had to be within city code
somebody i believe the doctor came and
complained the city staff went out
looked determined in their estimation
did comply with city code
and he said well i disagree with you
and he was told to appeal
now just off the cuff kind of told to
appeal but he took it he looked at the
statutes and he filed the appeal and
came to us
and the question became
do we have the right to hear this appear
appeal at all so we were very careful
that night to say
i don't want to see the fence
i don't want to know anything about the
fence
the question is
do
under the statutes of the city of bexley
the bees app have the right duty
responsibility
or jurisdiction to hear it or not
okay
so
the city attorney
gave us
his opinion
we
uh listened to the then there were four
lawyers here that night as i said
earlier we read the statutes as we had
and the vote occurred
subsequently
the
board was aware that this decision was
made
and asked one of the members asked to
reconsider it right and that asked that
request passed which is why we're here
today so now we're here today to
consider again reconsider
the question that was considered in
february and that was should we take the
case or not and we decided that night
yes and now the question
the the motion to reconsider is on the
floor
uh so to speak and as a result we're
here to decide that again so
this isn't about defense i understand
and that's it
pretty much so
doctor is arguing here's the statute
you read it you decide whether you have
jurisdiction or not and as is
essentially and the city attorney and
miss telling him giving us their
opinions
their opinions essentially are that this
is not an order
or a decision or a determination by a
zoning officer
this is a issuance of a permit
which is
okay
so and that is also not the only statute
on appeals there's a specific statute
which is 12 26 18.
that
is the
the jurisdictional provision relating to
appeals to this board how you do it when
you do it
and as part of that there has to be
an appeal if you want to appeal from the
zoning officer or arb to this board
there has to be an appeal file within 10
days of the date of a
written decision
of the arb or the zoning officer
or other administrative official
there is no written decision
the only written decision by the zoning
officer in this case was the issuance of
a permanent permit is not considered a
written decision it is a written
decision she issued a permit
there was a complaint by a neighbor
in a telephone call to miss rose that he
did not believe that what was built was
in compliance with the permit
and a decision that she made that it was
in compliance
which was not a written decision by her
it was not it was just a decision by her
in the interpretation the application of
the code
based on a complaint of a neighbor that
he didn't think it meant code and her
opinion was
social permit
so here's the statute
that that she's referred to just so
everybody knows what we're talking about
here the board of zoning planning shall
have the power to hear and decide
appeals
from a decision of the zoning officer
the architectural review board
which have been duly filed the zoning
officer within 10 days the date of the
written decision the architectural
review board or the zoning officer or
other administrative official in the
interpretation of the provisions of the
zoning code
then the board may in conducting a
hearing reverse the firm modify order
require decide
or determine uh the appeal and the
decision of the bees app shall be
subject to appeal to city council so in
other words um
the the issue here is
that
the the
instructions the the interpretation from
the city attorney as i understood it i
don't mean to put words in your in your
mouth mark is that
permits
are not the subject of appeals
unless you're a landowner you want to do
something to your land
you go ask for a permit
you are denied the permit
so now your
your land
rights
if you will your ownership rights have
been
um
uh
affected
therefore you have ten days you and you
gotta move quickly so once you find out
you didn't get your
your uh permit
then and they have to tell you in
writing that you're not getting your
permit that's a written statement and
you have 10 days from that date to
appeal so in that case there'd be no
question we could be here if the people
who got the permit were denied the
permit initially
and they appealed we would certainly be
here right now the the city attorney's
argument is that's not the case and
every permit that's granted in bexley
history cannot be the subject of a
beezap hearing well and and if i can
just while you're on that i'm sorry
there's a second point i don't want to
lose sight of which is what catherine
just mentioned and that is even if and
again
chairman b hall correctly summarized my
opinion that this is not a permanent is
not an appealable decision of the zoning
officer
um to this to be zapped under our code
but even if it was
any appeal from if you consider that
permit a written decision by the by the
zoning officer subject to appeal it has
to be appealed within 10 days and
and and nothing happened within 10 days
here for whatever reason it doesn't
really matter it has to it has to be
done within 10 days and if i can take it
a step further as you're thinking about
this
keep in mind the ramifications of the
opposite decision and hearing this
appeal so this means that if a permit is
great permits are granted all the time
for things i don't even understand or
get involved with but windows a roof
things like that so my neighbor goes out
to get a permit i wouldn't know i'm not
entitled to notice under our code but
three months into the project when it's
all done
then
under the theory that under dr
ridgeway's theory
anybody could call any neighbor could
come and say you know what that doesn't
mean code i don't like it whatever and
you're gonna now be in a situation where
you're telling a property owner who had
previously been told that he they could
do what was
their what they wanted to do that they
got to undo it right so that's not the
snare that happened here however okay so
let's we've cut into your time so let's
let you go i'm not going to talk for
well i think you should give them five
minutes okay so in this situation
obviously i'm not trying to deny
anybody the ability to build a fence
okay obviously
notices of permits do not go out at all
so you don't know when 10 days
would start from a permit but more
importantly the work doesn't even start
until sometime after a permit is
generated so
um
in this situation the work occurred in
october the code violation occurred at
the end of that on october 23rd
my phone call to ms rose occurred on 10
25 october 25th next monday morning
after the
code violation
in my view occurred
um
she
looked at the
pictures of the fence she didn't come
out i understand but looked at pictures
and
i had to get an opinion from her over
the phone she never put it in writing
ever and so
the 10 days would have started when she
put it in writing she never did
therefore i still have 10 days from
whenever she puts it in writing to
appeal it
as we speak right now she can put it in
writing tomorrow and i'll appeal it
within 10 days gladly
um
but here we are right you know we don't
need it the deal has been made
um within 10 days of something that
hasn't happened yet
and i would have to be psychic to know
that there's going to be a code
violation when the permits issued or
any time prior to when it happens
and when i call the next monday morning
that's um
you know that's that's certainly timely
yeah
i've been acting in a delatorious
fashion i've made every deadline okay um
i
filed for the i found the appeal before
the first possible
meeting which was january's meeting
since there isn't a december meeting
um
that fell through the cracks
and got put on for february not by me by
the department so it came from february
then at the last minute
uh mr official interjects all this stuff
comes out of nowhere and decide
and starts writing letters and so
the hearing that would have addressed
the feds i think if there's a code
violation
on anything
the defense
code is pretty clear it's it's right up
there at the beginning okay
i mean this is not stuff that we want to
just ignore okay we don't want to give
somebody
free reign once they have a permit to do
whatever they want and not have
decisions appealed if if
if they're not really looked at based on
the code
and that's important but i've met every
deadline you know i was here in february
we talked about it for an hour and a
half two hours it was a rigorous
discussion with you know good legal
minds and
a lot of discussion on these issues
great questions that went on and on and
the decision was made to hear the case
because
it should be heard and
this notion that we're going to have
people coming out of the woodwork months
later about windows
is probably not really um
realistic i i think you know
these code violations for someone to
appeal it's got to be fairly egregious
or fairly clear
you know and and i would think that this
board would want to hear these these
issues
um that's the purpose of this board and
in my view it's the duty yeah i think
that's that's certainly your argument i
think that it's the duty of the border
here or not and and that's you so the
statutes are there i think that what's
come of this regardless is that
the staff is now
probably going to say hey let's see the
design of your fence before we issue the
permit which is a which is it could be
an improvement in the way that we
operate
and and also uh
uh decisions in writing maybe that's
kind of the obligation based on this
code if we want permits not to be
then we should clarify that and i think
that we'll clarify it so that it becomes
clearer now i think the decision for us
tonight is is it clear enough the way it
is and so
let me let ask people who are here in
opposition if they have something they'd
like to add because uh they certainly
have the right to do so as well
all right i have to swear you in if you
would raise your right hand
do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give this board this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the
truth i do
thank you very much please state your
name can we ask the members of the
audience to please sit down
i'm sorry sure
i'm nancy wasserstrom i live at 18
ashborne road okay husband jim
wasserstrom is with me thank you um
at this point i know we're not
discussing the particulars of the fence
so i won't go into it though i am
prepared thank you um
we did have our permit issued on
september 20th we applied for it i
believe and it was in august
um we built the fence in october right
and it was built by a very um by ryan
day landscaping a cedar fence
i've been assured in multiple phone
calls to the city
since all of this stuff has started
that our fence is fully compliant
it's a high quality cedar fence
um it's not your typical board on board
fence we spent but once again see we got
to try to stay away from argument about
the board bottom line is we've um i
think we've met everything that the city
has requested of us
um
and
i i just find it amazing that we're
having to entertain this after the fact
all right
thank you very much thanks for coming
down tonight telling us what you think
as well
all right members of the board
you have
any questions or comments and certainly
i i need to give the appellant a chance
to come up uh and re rebut i feel like i
always have questions but i'm sorry well
you're you're you're allowed you know um
i
i'd like to understand what violations
you believe defense no
or
we don't can't talk about that tonight
no we can't do that don't think of
offense we're just don't think about
that we just have to decide if
think of the process think of the
process the procedure is what what is at
that question
the here
i do have a question
i i'm sorry i was asking the wrong
question so
i'm gonna not ask that question and i'm
going to ask
um
if permits
are not something
that requires
uh-huh now you're getting to the heart
of it here so yeah
that's the question that's why i'm
trying to formulate the best way to ask
this so it doesn't sound a lawyer no
no i just call all you
um
if permits
are not something that requires
hearing by the board of zone by bzap
i'd like to understand better understand
how the four came to the conclusion that
we should even be
well i mean
the reason is because sorry i think i
just don't understand mr schick and i
were both here that night we could
probably tell you what our own yeah
i'm more than happy to pick that up
please
mitchell i think one of the concerns
that we had that evening
one of the things they drilled into
from a fundamental constitutional
perspective is
the
especially what property rights are
involved the issue of notice
and here we were concerned with regards
to how permits were issued and then
whether or not this was going to be an
appealable matter on mr ridgeway's
behalf um that was what we struggled
with that night i think we bought this
board an opportunity to
um have you know both council but for
the city's council as well as the
board's council to um to provide
additional advice for all of us to
consider the facts and so in many
respects we made the vote i made my vote
that night and i believe i made the
motion um
from my own conscience because i wanted
additional time to hear the case or to
at least consider the facts and consider
whether or not we possess the authority
so here we're here tonight
now with all that information
determining by this but whether we do
possess that authority
and whether or not notice was even
sufficient or required in this case
which it wasn't
so
let me just give you some sort of zoning
fundamentals that i think will help
maybe
you sort of understand
so with zoning and building permits if
there is if you
if an applicant if you want to put up a
fence in bexley as a perfect example or
build a pool or whatever you have to
come in and you have to get a permit and
what the department does the staff does
whether it's the building department the
zoning department they review what
you're asking
if it meets code in their opinion you
get a permit
and you build it notice doesn't go out
to neighbors it's like taking an
objective test and that's what happened
and that's what happened here somebody
came in they gave a permit now the
permit says you have to meet code and
that's part of a condition so if a fence
goes up and it doesn't need code that's
what i was saying
staff then
issues a notice of violation goes out
talks the property owner tells them what
they have to do to meet code
so just because you get a permit doesn't
mean it still means you still have to
meet code
and so that's what happened in this case
permits don't come before this board
because they've already met the
objective criteria of the code and you
don't notify neighbors when you're
complying with the code because you
don't have to tell people when you're
meeting the law legal requirements
typically the kinds of things that this
board hears are things that need special
permission
like a variance which is i always say
just very colloquially that's permission
to break the law there's a lot there's a
code that you're not meeting
and you come in with all of your legal
excuses and i don't mean that in a
negative way
and if this board determines that based
on the seven factors that you we put up
on the board that when you weigh all
those factors you say yes there are
really special circumstances that apply
to you and we should allow you to do
that
the reason that people get noticed is
because what you're asking to do is not
what the code permits you're asking to
do something other than that and you're
saying there's a reason why same thing
with conditional use permits they come
before the board the code actually would
say
these are special these are uses that
require specific and special
consideration because of the impact on
the neighbors whether it's a
you know a stadium or a gas station or
whatever it is a daycare whatever might
this city council has determined to have
a special impact that comes before you
and people present all of their facts
and circumstances you've sat through
some of those very long ones and i
appreciate this board for doing so but
that's what you're doing because there
are special facts and circumstances
permits are the exact opposite of that
that's taking your math test and does
two and two equal four
or you know if two and two equals five
there's not really a special permission
to change that so that's that's
sort of the difference and i think the
board when you were debating where they
were struggling a little bit with that
because because you do hear appeals like
wait this is an appeal we hear these
but you don't hear appeals of permits
that are granted because the
determination was made by staff that
they met code
when somebody calls there's not an
obligation of staff to provide written
opinions
to defend their decisions
to
residents who complain certainly
appreciate that and bexley is very
proactive in trying to
be responsive to what residents have
questions about
but the obligation is really to make the
decision on the permit
and then when there's a complaint staff
is proactive about going out to see if
they think that there was a violation
whether the permit was met whether the
ordinances were met
if the staff says a permit was issued
there was no violation
then that really is
staff's interpretation that you've met
code
and that's not really an appealable
decision at that point in time because
you've met the objective law and it's
not a decision that typically this board
would hear or see
because it's a question of the meeting
the objective criteria as determined by
staff
and if i can add one thing to that too
and that is that as a reminder the only
reason that this board like any other
boarding commission in the city is a
creature of ordinance you're established
by ordinances and those ordinances
explicitly say what you can hear and by
implication then what you cannot hear so
you only have the this board only has
the authority to hear appeals that city
council through ordinance has given it
and permits are not part of that unless
it's as mr b hall indicated before
unless it is the homeowner who has a
permit denied they do have because it's
their property
i appreciate everybody explaining
i do understand i just you know wrap my
head around it since i wasn't here in
february
i think we're a lot of the the reason
that there are more than one opinion
about this as as the appellant has
indicated was when we were reading 12
2002
[Music]
if we could take a look at that
for a second
oh please thank you
to hear and decide appeals from
and review orders
in other words and to review orders
decisions and determinations
through the word determinations
i think swung for lawyers into saying
well what's a determination i mean
that's not exactly a
papal edict you know so
that could be any determination right
determination is too loose a word the
statute is not very well drafted in
other words it's probably the the the
seminal problem here tonight right so
when it's
when it when it's moved like that when
it's white when it's moved it doesn't
specifically say permits for example is
not it says determinations corresponds
fall under permits do they not
that's the that's why you look at the
appeal statute which controls it tells
you how you appeal and that's in 10 days
of a written decision of the zoning
officer and a permit is a written
decision of a zoning officer and as as
mark says yes you the if it's denied if
if if it's denied
and it doesn't mean code then the permit
applicant has notice of that and they
can appeal but there's no legal
obligation to provide neighbors notice
of permit decisions and again we can
debate all night if that's fair or
unfair but the reality is that the and
i'm not just i'm just saying i'm not
breaking on you i'm just
you know that
the the the reality is that permits
that that there's nothing in
specifically the appeals section that
catherine referred to that gives the
bzap the authority to review the
granting of a permit when a neighbor
doesn't want does disagrees with that
decision may finish
my question my question is if it is moot
and it does not specifically say that
then where in the code does it say
what you're referring to specifically
about
just which code does it say that so we
go back to 1226.18
which was up
previously
so there's two two answers first of all
again if since it's silent in the
statute or the ordinance in my opinion
that means you don't have the authority
because you only have the authority
that's specifically given to you
and so there's nothing that has been
given to this to be zap to review permit
decisions other than a permit that's
been denied and the homeowner appeals it
personally so there's
and if you look at 1226.18
again
even if you
even if you assume that that a permit a
decision granting a permit that would be
the written decision so now we'll be
well beyond the 10 days
because the date that ms rose issued
that permit is the date that gave them
the authority to go forward and they
reasonably relied on that so again the
other potential problem here is that you
have a homeowner who relied on the
granting of a permit and they have now
certain property rights if you will in
that fence which has been put in
and and again i i won't belabor that
point but that that's
but the bottom line is the the answer to
your question is because it's silent
means you don't have the authority to do
it and if you have the authority to do
it if you think you did and now i'm
being a broken record the appeal had
been filed with in 10 days of the date
the permit was issued now we're starting
to repeat ourselves here a little too
much let's let the appellant have a
rebuttal here
yeah i can't believe you guys are trying
to state that the written that the
permit is the written decision or is the
decision at hand that's not a
possibility okay
the issue is the code violation
infraction which occurred october 25th
weeks after the permit came out so if
you're saying
that
that the permit is the decision nobody
could ever repeal any action of anybody
with permit and that's
not what code is for okay that is not
why we have a code that talks about
fences very prominently
um otherwise anybody could build any
fence and then ms rose gets to decide
everything and it's clear that this
board has the
obligation
to
review her
her decision and it should be in writing
it's implied that it should be in
writing but
you're
basically saying you don't have the
obligation
to
to take your i mean the determination
is pretty clear in the code i mean
otherwise anybody could break code and
get away with it if
if the building director thinks it's
cool mr
point of order uh has there been
a determined violation of the code no
okay i just want that with the record
thank you i don't get to i i need to be
able to make that argument yeah i mean
i'm happy to present facts i don't want
to present the facts why doesn't this
board want to hear the facts that's what
i want to know if if that's irrelevant
what we want to do is irrelevant i think
what's what's before us is what does the
statute allow
and or in in some cases make our duty as
you put point out it's a duty i think
it's an obligation and if the statute
says it's our duty then we have that
duty if the statute doesn't it doesn't
it's not about the permit i want them to
have offense okay
yeah i want the i want a fence
okay
we're all in agreement i want to sense
but it's got to meet the code i mean all
right
hey so all right i think i think we
understand your argument and i
appreciate you coming down here twice
now to make it and and spend all your
time doing so i also appreciate the city
attorney and and the outside counsel for
giving us their
uh rendition of of what they believe is
a proper interpretation of the statute
but regrettably ultimately now that
we're in this position this board has to
make that decision
if there if the board members have
additional questions or comments
i think now is the time otherwise i
would urge that we call the question but
kurt please um
i think the statutes are abundantly
clear
and i would certainly put
the decision to issue a permit as a
determination by staff and and and i
don't know why we are afraid
to review a decision by staff i
understand all the logistics that we're
talking about and the problems and
things but
i think the law is written that way i
think it's intended that to be that way
that we serve that function of an appeal
board
if a staff makes a determination and
there are a variety of determinations
which staff could make it's not just a
permit that's open to that
it could be
um
a violation maybe she makes
determination there's a violation of
this or somebody did not comply with it
we would be the body that that's
appealed at and that's where that should
be done and so i i don't know why we're
afraid of that and admitting that and
saying that we weren't afraid to have a
great fortune yeah but we have an
incredible staff
i totally trust what they're
making their determinations are and if
there's an air somewhere along the way
and it gets caught that's what this
board's meant to do and that's what i
think the look the
code specifically says is our job and i
don't understand why we are afraid to
embrace that moment and do it now at
some point in time i am also
looking at this particular unique
situation
clearly the 10 days wasn't met
um it would take
incredible talent to be able to meet the
10-day test
in those circumstances no notice yeah
right
but that is what it is and that's part
of the law there but i i guess i think
we should make an acknowledgement here
that it is part of our duty
to hear appeals of permits
or any other determination of staff but
in this particular circumstances it
doesn't stand because it didn't meet the
10 day rule
now the ten it's ten days from the
written determination
all right let's let's let's not get into
this it's not a debate i'm just i answer
that one question i um i i don't share
that view i think it's been crystal
clear from the city attorney that we
have no jurisdiction on this matter and
i think if
um
we're going to set a precedent then
any permit that ever gets issued by the
city
anyone could file an appeal and then you
know where someone's gonna say their
plumbing line's not right or their
sprinkler system or their windows or
their chimney or any permit that ever
gets issued and i don't think based on
what i've heard from the city attorney
uh and ms cunningham i don't think we
have any this board has any jurisdiction
over the issuance of a permit
and that that's my opinion okay
all right mr mitchell where is uh
i was just going to say i pretty much
agree my my thought on it is i mean
being on the board
i know there's a lot of attorneys here
and i guess fortunately i'm not one um
but
from here
we are supposed to review and analyze
the code we have city attorneys that
then review the code and tell us the
interpretation of the code there may be
other interpretations of the code but
the code we have to follow is what our
city attorneys believe the code reads if
there's a problem moving forward either
we request someone request the code be
changed you can go to city council have
the code changed but as the code
currently stands our city attorney says
we don't have the power to do it i think
that's the end of the question i mean
our city attorney is telling us not to
do it
and
he's interpreting the code
and that's the person i'm following is
our city attorney because that's the
person that's
um reviewing the city code okay that's
mine and furthermore he stated if we did
act on it we'd be in violation of the
city law or city ordinance
all right following in your footsteps mr
turner i just want to ask uh city
attorney whether or not um going to the
next city council meeting is an
appropriate avenue
for the appellate
or for the would-be appellant
again what would happen is
arguably
then if if if
b zap denies the appeal because i'm
sorry
if the b zap decides you don't have
jurisdiction to hear that i think
arguably uh the appellant here could
file an appeal with city council and
that at that point city council would
decide whether you were right or wrong
regarding whether you have jurisdiction
so they could kick it back to us they
could kick it back to us if they
disagree if you if you grant if you
dismiss the appeal because you don't
have jurisdiction they can kick it back
to you if they disagree with you and
with my advice
yes
now
what not really our job here to
determine what the next appropriate
act is on either side okay so i don't
want to get into that anymore that i
want to get into whether this fence is
cedar or oak right i don't think we i
think we need a focus this is a
procedural vote okay
and so
um
i think eventually we have a lot of
other cases here tonight i think we need
to move this forward i think we need to
take a vote and see what the we've got
some idea of where various people stand
if anybody wants to stay
their case as to why they feel pro or
con anything
you know my feeling
is that the four lawyers voted that way
because that's the way the statute reads
it's not our decision
it's not our duty to sit here and say
this is how zoning works in the entire
united states and therefore this this
wasn't very very well drafted and will
make up for the fact that the drafters
didn't draft it very well
by voting the way that all the textbooks
say it's supposed to go i don't see it
that way to me
if
a zone if a determination on a permit is
appealable
by the person who loses the argument at
the city level then it's a determination
that is appealable
now i don't see how you say it's
appealable to the person who doesn't get
the permit that determination
is appealable but the other is not i
just don't know that doesn't mean in all
fairness the code doesn't say who's
allowed to appeal and who's not right no
that i don't think that's what mr fishel
is saying he's saying it's appealable
within 10 days but the notice is going
to go to the applicant yeah
but i i think that it's a determination
that's the word i have a big big big
problem with and i don't think you need
to worry about any
precedent setting because this statute
is going to change here in the next
month because it's
pathetic but regardless that's that's
just what i believe is going to happen
city council we don't by the way make
any laws or vote on any laws we just sit
here and try to do the best we can with
them which is you can see sometimes not
quite that easy but i would at this
point
ask that if there's no objection that we
call the question and vote any objection
to that mostly
okay please
uh the
the issue is
should we
take jurisdiction of this matter
or not you vote yes we take jurisdiction
if you vote no we do not take
jurisdiction
it's fair enough and clear enough
clear okay
ms rose please call a roll
who made the motion i'll be closer oh
there's a microphone we need a motion
yes yeah okay okay mr second
all right
miss mitchell
she would go
i'm wrestling with my decision i'm not
manchester united just to give you
just to give you a few seconds when i
was on the columbus board of zoning
appeals and there were seven members and
there was always seven there sometimes
there'd be 50 people there to argue
inevitably any real tough cases it would
go yes no yes no yes no and i have to
make the entire decision with the city
of columbus right which i was not very
happy about in some situations but
nonetheless i feel the burden that
you're now feeling
i so
the rebel in me wants to say you know we
appreciate your advice
i always have to take it
we can hear a case and move forward um
but i i feel like it just
it got dumped in here and we need to
clean up the ordinance and i think that
no
okay
mr prashayk no
mr marsh no
mr turner
no
mr westlak yes
chairman behalf i vote yes
the
board has decided not to take
jurisdiction
and
this matter is
over
at this point at least
which brings us to the next case on our
docket which is
yes sir could i uh request a
five-minute break yes please
that's reasonable you did listen to both
cases i already got the stretch we'll
take a five-minute recess
until
806.
that was a fair request for recess
april 2022 meeting the columbus border
of the comsport of the bexley board of
zoning and planning and going back there
too many years
uh this is case
uh
bzap 20-32 involving 464 south parkview
the applicant is mary kendrick the owner
is mary kendrick and the applicant is
requesting an expansion of the previous
variants
uh for a front yard fence i remember
this case yeah don't just please raise
your right hand you got to use your
right hand dank on it
the other right you know
do you swear or affirm that your
testimony this evening will be the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes yes thank you very much
all right staff
please ms rose tell us a little bit
about this okay
so
this is a property located at the south
east corner of brighton and south
parkview
and the applicant was before the board a
little while back seeking a variance to
put an ornamental
wrought iron fence along the east
property line which is their front yard
even though the house faces brighton
the address is parkview but it is
plotted to parkview
so there's the box of a row of boxwood
along that property line and the board
approved the throt iron fence to be
placed behind it well the applicant has
since found three more sections of this
fence
and
they wanted to add one section to the
south and two more sections to the north
side of the existing fence and i did
check with legal council to find out if
in fact they needed to request another
variance
the answer was yes
but it looks it looks lovely it's
inconsistent with what's there
and one of the concerns we have when
you're planting close to a corner is the
site triangle that we need to make sure
that it's open so i actually met the
resident out there and we ran a string
from the corner and cut it across
because they're adding some additional
hedges along the bryden road part of
that property but all of it is outside
that site triangle so there's no issues
with that
and the fence simply matches what's
there and it's simply a continuation
beautiful well i remember we had this
case before and it looks great there by
the way but so uh do you have anything
to add to that i mean that's pretty
simple request yeah no we want to bring
it along 11 feet uh on the left hand
side there which is the north side and
then one more section extended to the
property line on the south on the south
side
um
and yeah
that's about it we'll take it about to
where that tree is there at the end of
the box up there you know
a little bit beyond that
yes one of those
there you go i see
yeah
oh yeah
[Laughter]
all right my god i can't believe you had
to come back here and get more
very nice for this one more caramel show
the other side
there's one more she says
yeah
yeah this is a really a weird situation
where this is a parkview house but
really the front door is definitely on
bride it's it's a very cool house you
guys have done a nice job with that yeah
it looks beautiful there all right is
there anybody in the audience that is
pro or con this request
thank god
uh any members of the board have any
questions or comments i have i have one
because okay um miss kendrick it's very
nice to see you again when you were here
last time i remarked that i'm one of the
individuals who i use brighton kind of
like it's my main street to cut over to
drexel
um if there was a public health um
exception for this i think it should
fall under it because what you've done
both by cutting down the original boxes
and installing those with the fence and
now with that corner because i saw you
pull out the trees
last week or the week before
you can see
especially with so many people postcode
it's my old man argument my wife always
laughs people walking in the street not
on the sidewalks anymore
i think this is a great addition thank
you i'm sorry you have to be here thank
you
all right any other further questions or
comments
uh can we have the findings of fact
conclusions overall please
the findings affecting decision of the
board for application number bcap-20-32
for property located at 464 south
parkview upon consideration of the
application proposed variants and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven the
criteria to grant an area of variance in
mexico section 12 26 11 c have been met
in a variance from mexico section
1264.02
c
to allow a wrought iron fence
three feet in height
along the to be added along the existing
fence on the
east front property line
i'm sorry west front property line
correct
i should be approved as submitted all
right thank you very much
can you put the length of the like as
well as the height can you put the
length it's 11 feet on the north end and
eight feet on the south but i think
there's a variance for the whole front
i already got a variance for what's the
existing they're adding two sections
more to the north end and one section to
the south end you understand
what you read didn't have the length in
there it just so
so how what how long so it's 11 feet 6
inches on the north
and taking it to the property line on
the south
which is probably 12 feet is that the
entire length of the front property
no
no because um
if you look at the picture
that tree
we take it just past the tree and then
ripped out the corner honeysuckle
see so it says a 17 foot extension on
the northern end and an eight foot
extension
and instead of going the whole 17 it's
only going to be 11 and a half because
of once you rip it out you figure
out how it actually looks and it looked
a little weird to take it too far
why don't we say 12 and 12 they can't go
past their south property line i think
right yeah
up to that's not 12 foot sections at
north and south ends of the existing
wrought iron fence yeah that's fine i
just
down the road if somebody after you
comes in and says we've already been
approved and we at least have a length
in there
all right fine with that
modification to the findings of fact and
conclusions of law do i hear a motion to
approve
second thank you
that was
shaken mitchell
would you please call the role
mr marsh
yes
yes mr west select yes
mr schick yes chris mitchell yes
chairman behold i vote yes also the
variance is granted
good luck thanks a lot it looks great
thanks a lot appreciate it
all right the next case
is
bzap 22-8 involving four one five
northview the applicant is amy
lauerhouse the owners are bryant and
bridget marsh uh-oh i plan to recuse
myself you're gonna recuse yourself
are you sure you want us to hear this
tonight sir you don't want a table
[Laughter]
his family
his case his house
or house to be
all right
mrs lower house would you raise your
right hand and be sworn you swear to
tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth as you testify
before this board this evening i do i'll
give you a little twist on that
all right
ms rose tell us a little bit about this
uh
this
application was actually before the
architecture review board on two
occasions uh the applicant chose to to
skip the beez app last meeting and go
back to the architecture review board
with the modifications that they had
requested which i'll defer to karen to
get into that part okay thank you they
are
seeking a variance to
allow a new structure to be built on the
north lot that was created when there
was a lot split for the house that was
demolished at 407 north view that house
is currently under construction
and
this house is actually
the variance to 1252.00
because of the
size of the slot
this slot is 70 feet by 149 feet deep
although the original out of record
there are three zoning district their
lot size standard is 70 by 160. so it's
slightly smaller than that
in and this is located in the r3 zoning
and yet the r6 lot is 50 by 120 so it's
slightly larger than that so this light
is somewhere in between those two zoning
districts
and what i appreciate is the fact that
amy actually
put in her comments within the
application
uh although there's variances required
she took the
the average of those side yard setback
requirements for both the r3 and the r6
and she took the average and and
placed this house using those setbacks
it is still encroaching on the setback
for the r12 zoning r3 zoning district
however
due to the size of the lot
uh it seems to to work in my mind
or with with what she's working with
being it's a non-conforming lot for this
zoning district
um also there's a
garage
that is at the front of the house
and there was some discussion about the
fact that it was at the front of the
house but the narrowness of the lot
uh
provides a drive that actually accesses
a courtyard
and the garage is not facing the street
so it does mean you know the cars can
maneuver in the courtyard and one of the
comments that the architecture review
board thought was important is to
provide some sort of screening in front
of that courtyard
and amy chose not to do a stone wall to
match the house due to the fact that
there's a large tree that they're trying
to make sure they can
retain that so by using posts and maybe
uh
wrought iron fencing or something
similar and then of course their
landscaping would be
reviewed by the tree and public garden
commission to make sure that the
proper screening provided so that would
be one of my conditions if the board
finds these
variances appropriate to grant
and i don't believe there's any issues
with
lot coverage
is it for the is it the building
footprint
um
well the lot the lock coverage for rf3
is 25 and we're at 29.4
so again it's oh that's right and
halfway thinking are six exactly 25 and
35
right but but the overall
that's i'm sorry that's the building
code or no lot coverage right
and and and by keeping the drive at just
the front portion of the lot
prevents the additional
right overall coverage on the site being
below what's allowed correct
okay
all right
um
ms larose why don't you give us uh
oh i'm sorry i forgot i forgot the you
know you sort of been absent the last
two cases and i forgot
how can i forget you
and karen can also talk about how it
fits into the neighborhood too
yeah um this came before our text review
board twice i think twice yes
the first time which is not unusual for
a new build um
it is unusual in that
amy's very lucky recipient i haven't
mentioned without having to go through
the demolition so
much time was spent on the architecture
review in a very good way
um the board did want them to come back
with some
i would say tweets
um and still have some desires for a
couple more tweets
um let me jump to the end the board
recommended this union this late to this
board i would ask would ask for the
condition that he may return back to
architecturally board in two weeks just
for some minor tweaks they were looking
for a porch on the
first that was kind of a connection that
where the garage and the shirt is um
kind of gets all the attention so they
wanted her to work a little bit on the
south side um so that's that's the only
condition that i would request
um
it is an unusual block and that is our
you know site in that it's being kind of
redeveloped and it doesn't have a
irregularity of styles like a lot of
streets and decks we do um the board was
very receptive originally had some a
little bit of heartburn with the front
garage but after really looking and
setting the site um
if there's any other placement in the
garage it really creates a situation
where there's a ton of hardscape and not
a good use
not a lot of use of any backyard space
um so the board has come full circle and
really um
uh is pleased with how
amy has treated the front
the front of the garage with the side of
the garage that faces the
and i can pull up any of those drawings
as well but the the long and short of it
is that the there's the front this is
the dead an elevation that you actually
never see in real life but
direct elevation from the street on the
front
um so
it's come a long way
there's i don't if you want me to get
into any of those changes i can but
basically they're just proportional
things like uh the torah was lower they
we asked sami to stretch it and to make
it more of a pivot piece and change
materials
um
unless any of you have any major
concerns about the architecture so i can
go into any explanation
the only condition that they would ask
is they can come back before they're
recorded in two weeks for final design
and i did skip the rear yard setback
where she
also used the average there 40 is what's
required in r6 25 is what's required in
r3 which is this is in the r3
and she's proposing a 32 foot
okay
yes
there you go now miss lower house you
can tell us why you decided to try to do
things the way you did they always give
such a good summary i'll just add a few
more details um
flattery will get you nowhere
they don't vote um
so yeah like kathy said when we were
kind of approaching this lot the the two
things
that we noticed right away is it's a
non-conforming lot in this district and
really it's it's almost exactly between
an r3 and r6 i kind of joked if you had
an r4 that's what it would be
um so when i was looking at when i was
looking at it i i kind of just used that
as a guide so i i took the average of
both of those requirements and i said
okay let's let's kind of start there
one of the reasons that we
approached the gr if you go back to the
site plan karen one of the reasons that
we started with
and wanted to do a front garage is
because they
the site has two very large very nice
trees in the front yard
and they're both kind of on the edges
so if we did a rear garage we would not
only increase our hardscape tremendously
by putting a drive all the way back
there but we would also
pretty much have to lose one of those
two trees to to get back there um
so that was our approach for that as far
as the setbacks go um
they they've ranged in the the side yard
of variances range from 10 inches
to 26 inches and the house
you can see here on the site it kind of
jogs in and out
there's no wall that's just straight
there's a i tried to create a lot of
interest on both all four sides um
so that only small pieces project out
and the bulk of the structure is within
the setback um the diff the the
exception to that is the back but you
can see that the the majority of the
encroachment in the back is a covered
porch
so it's not going to have the same feel
that the that the main structure will
have in that respect um and if you karen
can go to the vicinity map
um the last thing i wanted to bring up
was
that
[Music]
um it's vic
it's not on there it's not on there
um
yeah and i also have a rendering if if
you're interested a 3d rendering if
you're interested in looking at that or
if you already have on on your tablets
but
the vicinity map shows the neighboring
houses
and how this house will look in in
comparison both in elevation and in plan
many of the houses on the street also do
not meet the setbacks for the r3 zoning
district so and i have some dimensions
on there if you if you haven't already
looked at that but um i feel
like we are there it is yes
um that we are fitting in with the
neighborhood um both houses to the right
have smaller than 12 feet side yard
setbacks and
both the new house to the left and the
house two to the right go quite far back
on the lot as does the house two to the
left um so we feel like the footprint is
very appropriate for the neighborhood
lastly the the my uh the homeowners have
met with neighbors um there's no
opposition that i know of um i think
everybody is in support
the woman uh the the family that lives
behind them is is actually looking
forward to this because there's some
drainage issues in the back that
were
our house and um g lu's house to to the
south the new house we're kind of all
going to work on that together as we
build these new homes
to make sure that that that existing
drainage problem
is
alleviated
all right
let's find out if there's anybody in the
audience that is here that is for or
against this application or wishes to
make any commentary about it
no
thank you very much
all right were you under oath there you
know
[Laughter]
all right
um
questions
i also want to point out that the this
is in the r3 zoning district and right
across the street is the r6 zoning
district okay
all right
questions
from members of the board
i really hope that one day you get to
design my forever home
because i have yet to see one that is
not just beautiful thank you very much
all right
has
just for the sake of making a record has
anybody on the board spoken with mr
marsh about this case
no no no nobody has good i thought that
was good to get that on the record try
to avoid it
you try to avoid talking to him at all
costs regardless
it's nothing personal but yeah i get it
all right um
we have a few
findings of fact
and conclusions of law and maybe a
condition or two based upon what i heard
from ms bokar so
that it has to go back to
i'll do that with a certificate of
appropriate
yeah
landscape plan which also goes
oh yes i uh i've already submitted the
application and i'm going to be on the
may agenda may 18th yeah
okay
and do we have anything to add related
to
grade
or just as in accordance to the plan
that should be a part of that
all right
would you like me to read myself please
if you would the findings of fact and
decision of the board for application
number
bcap-22-8 for property located at 415
northview
upon consideration of the application
proposed variants and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant an area of variance in mexico
section 122611c have been met
and three variances from mexico section
1252.09
r3 zoning to allow
a new home to be located two feet to
encroach two feet two inches into the
rear setback
side
i'm sorry rear
if you can run that down side yard
setbacks
north and south uh to encroach 16 feet
four inches into the rear yard setback
and to allow the overall lot coverage to
be at 29.4 percent
uh in conformance with the
site plan
and renderings
reviewed
on april 28 2022
with the following conditions that the
certificate of appropriateness be
remanded back to the architecture review
board
and that a landscape plan is to be
submitted for review and approval by the
treaty and public garden commission
i think somehow you covered it all there
i would just note that to the point of
the
grade
that's something that we'll cover in
architectural review because we'll talk
about okay
it's lining up with the neighboring
property okay so we'll we will address
that okay
yeah it's just we're trying to be
consistent with this yes all right okay
all right
is that rendition of findings of back
and conclusions of law acceptable you if
it gets voted on positively yes all
right
members of the board any additions or
modifications to the finance effect
conclusion of the law
if not i would entertain a motion to
call the question on
or to uh right rather to
move to accept the findings of fact
conclusions get ahead of myself i'll
make a motion thank you mr turner second
second thank you ms mitchell please call
the role
mr
turner
yes
miss mitchell yes
mr shake yes
mr westlake
yes
chairman bihar
i vote yes also and the variances
are granted and the street food
appropriateness is granted as well
a remanded back first of appropriateness
right
with conditions approved with conditions
marsh has recused himself and mr martin
refused himself from participation in
this
case
all right
then we can call the next case which is
b z ap 22-11
uh involving the property at 783 francis
the application the applicant once again
amy lauerhass the owner is mark hathaway
and the applicant is requesting
approval of a variance
architectural review and approval and a
certificate of appropriateness for the
demolition of the existing detached
garage
and the construction of a new detached
garage and patio
you've already been sworn
this is francis correct correct
ms rose
yes uh this applicant is
uh
was actually before the board in
september 24th of 2020
and unfortunately we did grant one
extension but it was still never
constructed okay and uh
currently
there exists a 1232 square foot garage
that is proposed to be demolished and
they would like to rebuild a 900 square
foot garage
but
place it in a different location towards
that's what's along the back property
line uh west property line okay the
proposed garage
is
276 square feet
larger than what code allows
yet it is
332 square feet smaller smaller than the
existing garage that's there now
interesting and further by relocating
this garage they're further removing
more
hardscape in your rear yards i think
that's a nice improvement
okay
um the architecture review board
approved this as a consent agenda item
okay discussion
thank you
ms laura house yes again a good summary
i
um i just want to reiterate with what
karen said that it is um
my client bought this home because of
the garage
and now it's falling down so he has to
replace it um it's it's badly
deteriorated um so we want to replace
replace it with something that still
gives him the space that he you know
wants and that he the reason he bought
the house but at the same time
relocating it in a better position on
the lot so that we can decrease the
hardscape
what would be the maximum square footage
seven
six
okay is there anybody in the audience
that's here to discuss this matter with
us or to express your opinion
sir if you would come forward
mark
sir
you're the owner that's fine you
certainly qualify as having standing do
you swear or affirm the testimony you'll
give us this evening will be the truth
truth nothing but the truth i do thank
you very much
um
i think yeah everybody's done a good job
of summing up i just wanted to add that
as they said
i got a variance to to build this exact
garage in september of 2020.
and i didn't i guess i didn't realize
that there was a time limit oh i think
so because it's pandemic and that sort
of thing i i put it off and then when i
started working on it sort of an earnest
toward the end of last year
um i
contacted amy gave her some information
because this was part of a much larger
plan initially and then we sort of
teared it down
and i sent her some of the work that i'd
done
and she
sort of took that and started to go and
i think when you got
on the agenda for the interview they
said oh by the way you know this is
expired
so
um just a little back story there so
other than that it's exactly the same
thing that was before this group before
okay thank you very much
thank you for your patience
um
members of the board questions or
comments sir mr turner one quick one on
on the agenda it states dude attached
garage and patio is there a patio oh yes
we're just we're putting a little patio
on the back of the house behind the
house yes that's not that doesn't need a
variance no no no okay
okay
any additional questions comments
can we have findings of fact conclusions
of law please
the findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number bzap
dash for property located at 783 francis
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it
the board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria the granted area
variants in mexico section 122611c have
been met
and a 276 square foot variance from
mexico section 1252.15
to allow a 900 square foot detached
garage in your rear yard
should be granted as submitted
all right
is that
acceptable yes you all right
any comments from
members of the board
if not do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law
thank you
second thank you
mrs rose please call the roll
mr marsh
yes
mr turner yes
miss mitchell yes mr shake yes mr wesley
yes chairman
i also vote yes the variances are
granted
i'm sure you want me to read the
findings for a certificate
yes please
okay so for application number
bzab-22-11 for 788 francis
the board finds a certificate of
appropriateness
should be issued
with any
modification as recommended by the
architectural review board
right
i think that's correct
all right
do i hear a motion to approve the
finding in fact the conclusion of the
law regarding the certificate of
appropriateness so moved thank you
second thank you thank you mrs mitchell
please call the roll mr westlake
yes
mr turner yes
mr marsh yes miss mitchell yes mr shea
yes
chairman behold i vote yes as well and
this tribute appropriate this is granted
thank you all right
the next case involves
this case bzap 22-12
involving 844 chelsea
the applicant once again is amy lower
house the owner is andre young and the
applicant is seeking approval of a
variance architectural review
and approval
and a specific appropriateness for a new
two-car attached garage with an office
above
as i understand it so
is it tech it's not a we have this
discussion it's not a very it's usable
space it's it's a special permit is that
it's a special permit okay so under the
new accessory code
amy has designed a garage that meets
everything
however
a special permit is still required
by the board zoning and planning
for a garage with a functional dormer
and
the fact that
one of the concerns with the dorm is
that it meets is more than 10 feet from
the side property line which in this
case it is
[Music]
yeah due to these due to the location
the the r6 zoning district or the size
of this lot it's required to have a
special permit by this board
okay functional
well the functional dormer does face the
neighbor is not interior to the lot
and it does meet the 10-foot setback
so i'm
i guess
my confusion was that
when it says the interior of the lot i
interpreted that as
it's on the far side of the lot and the
dormer's face
a lot
our backyard
and there was some confusion over
whether it faces the interior meaning it
faces the house
versus faces the yard side but
but yeah if you if you go to the site
plan
um
the
uh
there we go
so
uh if you look here the the existing
garage is is on the right there in the
dashed lines
we're moving it's more like a shed
actually we're moving the garage to the
south
uh i'm sorry to the north uh because
there are three very large very nice
pine trees there on the south side that
they want to maintain so that's why
we're moving it to the north
um
and the door the two small dormers that
we have face the south
so they're kind of looking over
that side yard of our yard and the big
pine trees that are there
um what's to the right another
residential
um
yeah the neighbor
to the south their garages on the south
um but then this is this um this is
chelsea so they back up to the columbus
alley right yes
so
okay architecturally speaking which i
would say that these dorm rumors do face
the inside
because if you look at this follow my
cursor anything on this side or this
side would be the outside of anything on
this side or this side would be the
inside
that's how i interpreted i asked one of
the members that was on the committee
when this initially was constructed
and
their comment was facing the
property owner's home or yard that's how
the discussion was
in the act when we formulated it because
i i couldn't recall i can't i i remember
that it was either way because we talked
about it just depends where the pitch of
the roof is right because if you you
know that would dictate that we always
have to have the ridgeline going in the
same direct going
long ways on the lot right so that's
that's that's the issue i guess is is um
and we talked about this a little bit
too on very narrow lots
the narrow width of the garage is up
parallel to the narrow side of the lot
so you're going to want the gable to go
that direction
which means the dormers are always going
to be on the side they're not going to
be facing the alley or the house well i
love to hear architects arguing instead
of lawyers
it's beautiful
well and that's typically just on these
smaller lots right but because of the
size of these lots
anything less than
13 999 square feet
if it has a functional dormer still
requires a special permit regardless of
words
so
the garage is designed within all the
new detached garage requirements
the only thing that we're here for
tonight is the dormer
so
what about the rule that you know you're
gonna have two or three things running
water
what what does it have up there it just
has an office space no no water no
nothing okay heat
yes a heat yes
that's not one of the three criteria
right
is there anyone here in the audience
that is
here to comment on this matter
appears not
members of the board do you have any
questions
or comments of ms lauerhouse
who i learned earlier today while i was
refusing myself
her son is graduating from the
university of cincinnati they're down
there celebrating already yesterday she
drove up for these three cases and is
driving back tonight so that she can
continue go get drunk or something i'm
not sure
we asked that that last part
we'll strike that that's my my fault
anyway
um
do i
do are we ready to hear findings in fact
conclusions of law okay
yeah
almost yeah
i was stalling for you there as best i
could
all right
the findings in fact and decision of the
board for application number bzap 20
2012 were probably located at 844
chelsea
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before at the board finds the
applicant has proven the criteria to
grant an area of variance
mexico section 12 2611 c have been met
and a special permit in accordance with
mexico section
1252.15 a should be granted
to allow a
detached garage in the rear yard
as submitted
we have a picture of the dormers
right you know
okay
all right
do
was the reading and the finding in fact
acceptable yes your client um
do i hear uh
a motion to approve the findings back in
conclusions of law so move
can i also add a a and c just to cover
my tracks i'm sorry i stated 1252.15 i'd
like to incorporate a and c
a and c two subsections of the statute
okay
okay does that alter your your emotion
mr turner
no i didn't think my second is motion
thank you
please call the roll
i'd give you a chance mr westlak
mr marsh yes
chris mitchell yes mr duchess yes
mr turner yes and chairman i hope yes as
well
thank you very much thank you for your
patience tonight also and good luck to
your son and to you
probably more to you
uh should i read findings to grant a
certificate of appropriateness on this
one too
when he's different appropriateness on
this one
i don't think so because it didn't
meets code other than that special
program
right did you go to the arb yeah they
made a recommendation yeah we probably
should it's just to be safe okay
all right then we need a secretary we're
gonna do a certificate of
appropriateness
yeah
uh
finding the fact and decision of the
board for application of easy ap dash
22-12 for 84 chelsea the board finds a
certificate of appropriateness should be
granted for the detached garage
in accordance with the recommendation
from the architecture review board in
accordance with the plan submitted april
28 2022.
okay that's acceptable yes
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of facts removed thank you
thank you ms mitchell
please call the role mr shea yes miss
mitchell yes
turner yes
mr marsh yes mr westlake yes sharon
i vote yes as well and those certificate
of appropriateness is granted thank you
good luck drive safely
be careful
the next case involves
uh 2455 east main street bzap
22-9
the applicant is chris valette the owner
is matlin holdings llc and the request
is for approval of a variance
architectural review and approval and
it's figurative appropriateness to
enclose the front patio
uh with glass panels
all right
would you two raise your right hand be
sworn do you swear or affirm that the
truth your that the testimony you're
going to give the board this evening
with the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes
thank you very much
please state your name i'm chris bellet
the architect all right chris
we all on this show just from
eating okay
all right tell us
staff what what you uh what the city
staff
thought about this request
okay
so
the cafe assemble had previously
received approval for a
patio cover
on the main street side of the building
north side
and
this was in 2021 i believe
and
business is doing well and the
owner of the business has
decided to request
approval to allow
the enclosure of that
patio space
which was subject to architecture review
and this has gone to the architecture
review board
for recommendation
um i want to give a little bit of
background
that the
with the previous approval as part of
that approval there was
to be a they agreed to submit a
landscape plan for staff review to
install landscaping to screen some of
the site parking
and
remove the non-conforming light fixtures
that were on the building which that did
occur for them to put the new patio
structure in front
however the landscaping
you know they've got tons of landscaping
around the patio itself but there's a
patch of grass that is between the
parking lot and main street and
typically we have a landscape buffer
that's you know to provide screening for
headlights that has never occurred
so going through all the criteria
for the site
that is what
one of the items that is not met
for the
the main street guidelines
we've had this case go before the
architecture review board
and they were supportive of the design
and at that time we did have some
concern from
neighboring property owners
uh speaking of items that typically
aren't addressed by these boards
but because of the concern
there was backing up in the sanitary
lines this is a very rare case you've
got a sanitary line that runs from this
structure underneath a an apartment
building
to the city's main sanitary line i don't
know where else is in the city anywhere
else so
in the last five years there's been two
occasions where it's backed up and we
believe it's because of debris or greasy
from the restaurant
so because the use
uh we're not adding more seeding however
we're allowing the use to be used more
often
so typically a restaurant has every six
month period where they have to clean
out the grease track
grease trap so in this case we have
reached out to the owner and requested
that they do it every three months which
they've agreed to i've got it in writing
with
sacha the manager of the property and we
can talk to her if we need to
and staff also would find that
the applicant should further monitor the
trash to make sure that that's
increasing that they're also addressing
that and picking it up more frequently
but i would not approve
anything unless the landscape plan that
was required from the last that that be
submitted and reviewed by our landscape
consultant
prior to the enclosure happening okay so
stop right there so the landscape
requirements attached to the to the
variants that allowed them to put the
structure up in the first place
or have still not been met right it's a
small area i mean if you've been to the
patio it's absolutely gorgeous oh yeah i
know i know
but as far as what's required in our
code for screening headlights that face
main street
that's never happened so so
so you're making that a condition of
well actually it's not only a condition
of this it would be a requirement that
they do it regardless correct okay
okay
ms boker um this the architecture review
board actually had this on their consent
agenda item list it did get kind of
moved a little bit back to the
regular agenda because there were some
neighbor concerns about the um
landscaping but we also
heard them but i'll
recognize that that wasn't the place for
those concerns kathy has addressed them
um as staff
um it still was unanimously recommended
from an architectural um review and
certificate of appropriateness with no
discussion despite the fact that it was
moved back on the regular agenda okay
mr
valet
tell me a little bit more about
this and i mean you're not changing as i
i'm this is a question actually you're
not changing the structure that's
already up
in terms of its size or its location the
size of the patio or the structure
you're going to slide some
tell us what you're going to do all
right these are glasses
here okay cafe istanbul in dublin okay
and it's a similar it's a similar setup
the panels are actually attached to the
columns okay so it doesn't go on the
ground so
it attaches to the columns it has doors
and and the glass panels slide up and
down for breezes
so it's a nice system that's very
successful out at the dublin location uh
first i want to apologize kathy i
total oversight on the uh hedge row in
front of the parking and i did get the
drawings to you today but i feel busy
with everything else the drawing yes
we've already i do have a landscape plan
that shows the hedgerow okay so and and
that of course we will get taken care of
right away okay as you as you know
as i'm sure you've seen the patio is
gorgeous she loves she enjoys her
she likes to plants yeah right so you
sent that to me in an email yes i did
thank you
okay and are the are these they look
kind of like double-hung are they
double-hung they slide up and down yes
and then what happens when it gets warm
the whole glass comes out no it slides
down to the lower half and then it's
just um it'll have the upper piece so
these are permanently correct placed
okay
that's a permanent door it's a
tournament door
okay all right
how tall are when they're down how tall
is it
remember
three foot
30 inches
when they're down it's like a 30 inch
rail correct yeah they're double
one size there's three panels
and they all slide down to the bottom at
the one hand
though it's on its side i think this is
the detail correct
sorry yeah that's it no it's one
no i didn't get it rotated oh actually i
thought i did right that's the yeah
but you can see
vertically the
panels
there's three glass pieces there kind of
you can see that right there yes
all right
is there anybody in the audience that is
for or against this case please
you are sir please come forward
yeah i hear you it's a long time to sit
down you'd raise your right hand
do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're going to get this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yeah i
do and please state your name my name is
michael green and michael do you have
standing in this situation where do you
live i well i live on eastmoor boulevard
but we own the duplex apartment building
that's immediately south and contiguous
to the istanbul site
immediately south okay and contiguous
too i've got you okay so you are on
what street is that cassini
we've run on to euclid clear you claire
right that's huge i'm sorry okay
thank you my wife and i have owned the
building for about 40 years
okay and uh
we we haven't had an issue it's kathy's
already mentioned the sanitary line
issue we haven't had that issue until
fairly recently i think it was 2017 we
had the first major backup
um
and i think it's it's obviously due to
the fact that it's more there's a more
intense use with just involved you know
there's more customers there
they're using the sanitary line more
more heavily than the previous uses did
um
what we've done is my wife
anne sitting right here
uh put together a quick memo that sort
of summarizes three or four points that
we want to make tonight
um
as kathy mentioned we share the same
sanitary line
uh it's a really unique situation our
building actually used to front on the
main street and it was reoriented onto
euclair so that site could build a gas
station running on maine really and in
the process they kept the one single
sanitary line which is
probably the most unique situation in
bexley very uh
and and obviously in a situation like
that we're both sharing the same line if
there's an issue with the restaurant
with rockage coming from the restaurant
it's backing up into our basement
we're downhill from the restaurant so
yeah
and there's been two instances like that
uh both cases we ended up bearing the
cost of cleaning it up
uh after the first instance we were told
by the city that they would monitor the
situation closely and it should be an
issue in the future um unfortunately it
was an issue
so five years later first first instance
was 2017
second instance was march of this year
uh we get we again experience some major
backup uh in both cases the city
incurred significant expense because
they had to bring a truck out and spent
multiple hours cleaning out their main
line in the alley which was full of
grease
uh which is really the main issue here
um
we have since met with both kathy and
the manager of the restaurant
and we've been assured by both that that
they would clean that line out on a
quarterly basis every three months the
secondary line
uh
we think that's a good first step uh
i
i think what we'd like to see tonight is
some confirmation of those conversations
in your approval process
something in the approval process that
says that the approval is contingent
upon them living up to that three-month
commitment yeah um
we wouldn't we would ordinarily just let
you know how the process generally works
we would ordinarily attach a condition
to the variance well if that if that's
the appropriate way to do it we
you know we wholeheartedly support that
okay um yeah we
you know
we wish the restaurant well we we want
to be good neighbors but you know this
was a major issue my son lives in the
building he had to vacate the building
it was so bad
we were out of town my son ended up
spending hours and hours cleaning the
mess up in the basement
my sister-in-law lives in the same
building you know she was inconvenienced
also
so if if
in addition to the line uh cleaning the
line out i think the grease traps
uh and and the uh
oil bin grease bin which is in the back
of the restaurant those need to be
obviously emptied regularly and the
manager indicated they would do that
okay um
[Music]
and what does regularly mean yeah that's
that's the question i'm not
they need to be pretty conscientious
about it i think it can't be
this can't end up in that sanitary line
again okay
um
and then finally the the
again we've talked to the young to the
manager and she's agreed to this the
emptying of the dumpster since you're
going to have more patrons in the
restaurant is going to generate more
food refuse more debris which will end
up in the dumpster
and
i'm almost done in the past there was a
an issue with flies and smell with the
dumpsters or
our uh tenants couldn't sit on the porch
and enjoy it you know the smell smell
could get pretty bad in the summer
so i think if they could continue doing
that the the
dumping that dumpster twice a week that
would be helpful too uh and we can
monitor that obviously and let them know
if that's not enough
um finally we've talked with kathy about
notification on the meetings
unfortunately they're they're going to
the apartment building and out to us so
i haven't been getting the notifications
and my wife called the post office and
they said they wouldn't deliver the
notification if it had both 622 and 624
on it
so it had to be to a specific address
that they wouldn't deliver
we do split those up and put them
separately okay
yeah and our our tenants it's my
sister-in-law my son so they would have
yeah if they got it they would have said
something but when are they having
trouble getting the property tax bills
to you did they yeah no they didn't i
didn't think they would you know
6 500 a year yeah i can imagine right
yeah
in any event like you said if you could
make it conditional
if
as a part of your approval process you
can make
just make this condition you know the
cleaning of the sewer line the emptying
of the dumpster and the cleaning of the
grease traps and the grease bands that
we really appreciate that all right
thank you very much for coming
and telling us your position
and i'd like to point out that i further
reached out to the franklin county
health department who does inspections
on all the grease traps in the
restaurants and i asked if they would
simply verify that the grease trap at
this restaurant is a proper size yeah i
was actually going to ask that because i
thought part of operation license for
food
that that's something that they have
regularly inspected they do um sorry
they would do that as well make sure
it's the proper size
okay
ma'am do you want to take
you have to be sworn in regrettably this
is a quasi-judicial activity
regrettably you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give the board
will be the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i i just want to
emphasize that the really serious issue
that we're not receiving
notices about the meetings right so here
we are you know
a year or more down the road on all this
we received no notice in 2021
about the um
initial plan okay
we must be informed okay we got no
notice about that we got no notice about
the architectural review review board
meeting
two weeks ago we got no notice about
this
please
um
kind of funny but the city of bexley
knows where to find us to send us a
quarterly water bill
okay so dexley knows where we are we
live on eastport boulevard a mile away
all right uh we've bought the building
for 41 years furthermore
prominently on the franklin county
auditor's website and on the
treasurer's website for property tax
bills
our mailing address is right there under
the property address 622 and 624
gives our name of course
and it gives our
mailing address right there it's all
together
on those websites and i think that's
where
the information is drawn from senate
notices so please
we're trying to participate in the
process we're happy to work with folks
the manager we talked yesterday sure
outside the
uh building don't have a property
manager we do everything ourselves
all right as long as we get notices
we're happy to purchase today thank you
we'll certainly
try to shore that up because that's
that's right notice needs to be given
oh and i did provide uh kathy when i
came over tonight with um
males
dress skippers
okay oh good
i just hope i remember the next time i
have a case within 200 feet of this
right which might not happen for five
years you know
and um you know since we are here like
almost like 11 years
and
like in this 11 years like we basically
start making business since last year
after we covered the patio
and like especially after it depends i
mean like it's been
pretty like
tough to have people sit inside like
people right before the city and that's
like since we have a like large video so
we try to use it as possible we can so
that's why we like today but i know they
i'm not
here to
them i already talked to them yesterday
like they mentioned
and i'm okay for anything the city tell
me okay when i talk with someone from
the city from columbus so so are you
okay with some of these specific items
that they've requested which is
i already like talked with someone
sitting like i say like it was
in march
and they told me like i have to do it
like every three months instead of six
months is that okay yeah i feel like
it's okay and emptying the dumpster two
times a week is that okay it's been a
long time ago they mentioned that and i
say okay and i sense that they're people
okay
like
there's not an argument we just have to
decide if we're going to make it a
condition we want to make sure that the
person who's asking for the variance is
okay with those particular conditions
yeah
anything like even not just not dumpster
or the grease problem if they see
anything going wrong i i i will talk i'm
like use my phone number you can call me
anytime okay
but yeah
okay
do you have anybody have any questions
or comments of the i'd just make one
representation just because um
in your your busiest season maybe april
through october
uh now it's may to
maybe october okay but um i i guess
you're already doing two times a week on
trash maybe bump it up a third during
this i do that in the busy seasons too
if i if i see like it's getting it's
busy time like if we if this is gonna
affect hopefully increase my business of
course like i would if i see like
something like i need to do extra then
and you can even sometimes call and just
ask for an additional pickup
oh yeah they want more money
for it
we usually go like once a a week during
the winter time you were doing like
twice if like all the summer time like
if
if it's gonna cost
me three times i don't want to pay
another service like hopefully it will
increase yeah yeah
well there's no question that your
business is helped by this
and this structure will be helpful too
yeah
all right thank you my dear thank you
all right
any questions of
members of the board of
do we have the specific conditions
uh set forth
and it was raised up in uh mr foster's
um no
note to us
is there required fencing that's
supposed to be around the outside
mechanicals
according to our code
some sort of cut i know
that i was i was trying to find the
record of decision and i believe i
thought we came across it but i did see
it as a condition whether it was part of
the discussion and i'm not sure if it's
maybe something that's come down since
it initially was
built and it was never replaced so if
that's the case um i was trying to find
that on the plan because these times
that i pull up she's talking about those
two boxes that are those rooftop
mechanicals right
there about screening so yeah as opposed
to fencing yeah
or some kind of a structure right it's
normally got a screening to cover up the
mechanicals on top of it do we have
plans somewhere originally there were
and i think over time windstorm or
whatever
probably as well actually this probably
should be replaced absolutely
yeah i wasn't aware of it until yeah
it's uh it's on top of the cooler and
the cooler is um
metal
and it's really tack content there's not
much
so yeah it's easy to blow off but yeah
we'll get that we'll get a screen thank
you if it's required
mr what is your exact role here you're
on the architect you're the architect
that's the condenser
of the building the condenser units are
on top of the pool
okay
anything further if not
i'd
like to hear the findings of fact and
conclusions of law
the findings and decision of the board
for application number ezap 22-9 for
property located at 2455 east main
street the board finds that a
certificate of appropriateness should be
granted in accordance with the decision
and record of action from the
architectural boards
april
14th
2022 meeting
with the following conditions
that the applicant
meet the conditions and approvals
recommended by the architecture review
board
did they have that they didn't it was
just consent really it was approved
unions with no changes okay
a solution to provide screening of the
parking area to be submitted to staff
for review and approval
and that the site modification designs
materials will be in substantial
conformance with the rendering of plants
submitted at the april 28 to 2022 board
of zoning and planning meeting
before that the
they clean
the dumpsters two times per week or more
if necessary
number five regular cleaning of the
grease and grease traps and sanitary
line every three months or more as it
may be necessary
and six that screening be provided
around the condenser units on top of the
walk-in coach rocket cooler
per original plan
okay
that was a mouthful did you uh listen to
all that and you approve of that reading
absolutely all right i just got a
question
number four did you say clean the
dumpster you should probably say empty
the dumpster empty the dumpster instead
of cleaning
something out there with a sponge very
particular well i'm just saying that
comes up
your moral standing is just being lifted
up
is that what it is
uh
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings back conclusions as well so
thank you mr sheen
thank you mr turner
please call the roll
uh mr westlake yes mr turner yes mr
marsh yes miss mitchell yes mr scheck
yes chairman
i also vote yes congratulations looks
like a good project good luck and i
appreciate a
your willingness to be to have all those
conditions attached and to change the
way that we're approaching this problem
and i also want to thank all the
participants for your patience waiting
through all those cases to talk here
tonight so thank you very much
all right
approval
you got it you've got it
all right
the next case involves b
107 ashborne
the case number is bzap 22-10
the applicant is
the same as the owners and i take it
that's you two gentlemen david ogreef
and brian kemp
yes the kemp's a lot easier to pronounce
yeah
oh griff
all right sorry there david
i was close not quite though
uh the applicant is requesting approval
of variance architectural review and
approval of this and a certificate of
appropriateness for an expansion to the
driveway at the ashborne location
gentlemen would you raise your right
hand please to be sworn do you swear or
the testimony you're about to give this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth
thank you very much
ms rose
we just keep firing at you i know you're
lucky i keep finding my staff
okay
so the applicant is seeking a variance
from mexico section 12
6201e
an excess drive shall not be less than
eight feet and no larger than 12.5 feet
in width and shall not occupy more than
25 percent of the front yard
so the existing driveway is 10 feet in
width and the applicant is asking to add
four feet of cobblestone on the
south side and two foot of cobblestone
on the north side for a total width of
16 which exceeds the 12 and a half foot
limit
the project was started prior to a
permit being approved
and why the members may have some
part there might have seen partial
excavation on site
which is all subject to a various review
and approval otherwise it would be
limited to 12 feet 6 inches in width
um i had the code officer take pictures
for me today
and
i
a little concerned with how this looks
it's a beautiful home
but with the
and maybe karen can speak to this the
unevenness
and adding to a drive
and
that's got some
[Music]
issues with it
the approach you can see it's cracking
and i'm not sure what if they're doing
anything at the street as well or we can
speak to that
yeah mrs boker did you have any
architecture view on this um i literally
just saw these pictures today okay i
mean i think we could have interactive
discussion as we hear about it
i did want to pull up this very
comprehensive
so that's why i sent the code officer
i'll just see what's existing and that's
you're planning to have that concrete
remain
no
oh in the center yes it specifies the
kabul walkway that's the four feet right
there in the center
and cobbles on the right side too so
there's no intention to do anything with
the existing driveway we're we're
flanking the existing
ways we've seen many homes and next we
have that was
i mean i could speak to it but i think
probably more appropriately is we might
want to condition this on elena andrews
he's our landscape architect
well i'm speaking to the the odd
two foot section on one side and four
foot sections oh just that unevenness
yeah well let's let them talk about this
that's quite obvious what you're saying
it doesn't need yeah sure
absolutely please
absolutely to speak um
we did sort of a david letterman top ten
reasons why
we are hosting atmosphere
and and i will caveat that with the fact
that we did have a miscommunication with
um our um thank you our landscape
company um his name is jesse moore with
moore brothers design and he has
communication issues kind of with his
hispanic staff and the cobblestones were
delivered
into anticipation of holding those until
mid-may and
jesse did not communicate them that the
work was to halt
i apologize that this has progressed um
to start off with okay i will tell you
that brian and i are not attorneys and
we're not too bad architects
but i am a master gardener so i know
very well and um from my work with the
uh grant writing for the bexley
community foundation as well as the
leadership team that i'm on for the
bexley community gardens we're
passionate about bexley we're passionate
about landscaping we're passionate about
home renovation we renovated a home at
um 386 north drexel six years ago it's
not really and planning was never going
to graduate from high school and get the
heck out of bexley because of the taxes
but during covent we kept taking walks
and we loved the neighborhood this house
had been on the market for quite a while
and we fell in love with it and found a
way to make it work so we're very proud
to own this
architectural gem i would call it and
just wanted to state that we're doing
everything possible to bring the home
back to its former glory and to the
right things architecturally for it um
it's gorgeous in short what we're kind
of asking for is a front sidewalk
because we don't have one um we did host
the annual i guess 45-year tradition of
an ashborne road holiday party and
people didn't know where to come into
our home even though the house is you
know forever the door is actually front
doors inside the porch chair um so there
was nothing to draw your eye or having
nowhere to walk in addition several
people have fallen down getting out of
the car because the driveway at 10 feet
is very narrow and if there's a car
parked there people can't get to the
front door for hosting an event so that
other concrete was that walk go to
another door that is that's actually
that's replacing a path that was um
originally full of vines so if there had
been a path just to the front it's for a
seating area
if you look at the architectural plan
there's the goal is to kind of create
like a garden woodland in the front and
then the back is perennial beds and
different kinds of a comfort bed
and different
kind of zones and the whole goal is to
draw your eye kind of into walking
journey around the yard so so that's
probably why karen had asked about elena
i believe that dash line represents your
property lines and you're proposing some
landscaping in the city right of way
oh okay so in the front yes yeah i had a
conversation with you let's drop today
about that too yeah sorry absolutely
that'll be connected there's already
landscaping within all in that ten feet
okay what we're basically doing is
taking a lot you can see the original
side
trees that were old
honeysuckle
trees on both sides of the properties
and then the threat were large
evergreens that have very much been out
seeing their usefulness
it's kind of done in conjunction i
reviewed that with grant archer or steve
zarborus as we were doing that work to
give his recommendations and then
most of this is kind of new plant things
but all the existing trees
that are there
um they exist
so there's there's little that we're
kind of adding to but i will definitely
just use this with sheila straub and
elena and the
trees commission so the curved portion
that's alongside the driveway are those
columns that are no no
that's these are boxwoods
but but there's not any kind of a two by
two something yeah we're still
discussing whether that's going to be
the lamp post or not okay if it's two
feet or less that's something i can sign
off on but if it's more than that you
gotta go
she did and sue
from jacob's grand design she did the
plan
with us and um
didn't tell us about the driveway
she should know she does a lot of work
she's been doing mostly
so and and kathy to go back to if you
can go back to the picture that where it
looks the worst in the
you scroll up just a hair
it's a nightmare right now so this
these sections are both cracked and what
we'd like to do is
assuming we get approval for this
because we'd like to take and you can
see they've already cut a line in here
we'd like to do the cobbles here bring
them across here and then back up and
the reason for sue's doing this was
because
why they're
why this drawing is different or why the
width is different and she wanted this
to have the appearance of a sidewalk
that's essentially
the front doors
okay
yeah right
i think your idea
the idea of connecting that at the
bottom
after the yeah
so your five minutes is up
now no no
the idea of connecting at the bottom i
think will look much better because they
just kind of always do that yeah
so it kind of frames the concrete
is
all right i guess that's not too bad
if it just goes like here
here no well you're not going to be
confused as to which side the sidewalk
is correct
and the whole goal is to get people to
go up the left to go
park toward the right and we're just
trying to like it would look weird just
to do cobbles and nothing on the other
side and we were also trying to match
the with with the portica share because
it
angles in as you go in and we're just
trying to
bring about the width of the report
how are the cobblestones on high heels
oh they're great
from my personal experience
[Laughter]
but there's ways to fill that in so it's
not as uneven and actually the landscape
company has used this material a lot
it's from langston
uh so we've worked with the owner there
to talk will it be this bright white
no
in fact
he started at the top and then when we
got the call from captain we told him to
stop
the stones that are closer to the house
he's actually he like he does some sort
of people towards that torch oh so they
kind of match them
i think that along with enclosing the
bottom so that it kind of you know
frames it
i think that will look great
um but i i totally get the initial
i know you know reaction
and i've been to this house many many
times with the pastor yeah wasn't this
the bones the bowman's yeah and the
traegers and the shecklefords
i mean i just stopped i
but it is tricky the entrance way
okay thank you for saying that that that
was
what was because it's behind there it's
like
behind there
yeah it's yeah behind them to the left
so i mean the the work they've done to
date is unbelievable it's the houses
clear out you know people don't realize
you just let stuff keep growing and
growing and and just clearing all that
stuff out and what you've done it just
looks phenomenal and when the full plan
is done probably
i was gonna say that they need a little
more landscaping though
i just want to frame that landscape plan
wow she does remarkable work she helped
us when we did north drexel and
we got rave reviews for that well the
house is magnificent and i think what
you're doing is just
yeah it is i wish
how wide will the driveway be
well this
[Music]
i don't get hung up i mean i like the
sidewalk i don't get hung up on
symmetrical as much as some people
the only comment i would make is i don't
i don't know if
making that to the side where it's two
feet less
might
make it look better i've been hiking the
what the the side where it's only two
they have two feet of sidewalk and then
they have four feet
i think it looks a little bit odd and i
just don't know if if they made it
less than two feet it would look
it would look bad on this on the right
side make it one foot you mean something
like that yeah just yeah i don't know i
honestly is trying to draw your eye to
the right pillar of the board of shares
i honestly think once the torching is
done in the stone matches
it's not it's not going to be some box
with the kind of armed up with the
privilege
but actually the north side lines up a
little bit better with the approach than
the south side the south side seems like
it's a little
wider than that approaching it that
might look odd
because your approach should just narrow
up the sidewalk and then go straight
back
if the driveway was there they were just
putting a foot of cobblestone on each
side so they were still under the 12
feet would they even be here talk to us
no i sign off on it yeah so basically so
basically the driveway with the
additional cobblestone to the right
should would be approved and then the
separate sidewalk to the other side
even though it's combined i know it's i
know anything beyond 12 and a half feet
yeah cause we've run into that before
where the sidewalk runs along the
driveway and
we've done that we've reviewed plans
like that before and having a different
material i think the board has kind of
warmed up
i mean it's you know it's artistic and
somebody's artistic talent
shows this i don't think we should
put
our artistic judgments
on top of theirs i think we should it's
done and complete and utah at the end
and everything else the lawn comes up to
it and cleaning the landscaping around
the house
it won't i mean
if you had a well i mean the portica is
sort of off to the
[Music]
i mean the picture looks about as bad as
it can
what was interesting sitting through
what now three hours an hour oh yeah
that's three and a half hours but like
the common theme that you all deal with
and i have to thank you for your work on
behalf of the community because bexa
looks as beautiful architecturally as it
does because you exist so thank you for
that but there was a common theme of
like sort of neighbors not talking to
each other and not communicating with
each other about plans and intentions i
will tell you that this plan after we
got it from sue immediately the people
next to us um had not moved in yet um it
just moved in like a month ago but like
six months ago we reviewed the plan with
them explained the trees we were taking
down because they were honeysuckle and
they were nasty we shared with them what
we were putting in and also our
neighbors to the right we reviewed the
plans extensively with them and worked
with them so that the beds kind of match
so there's a flow now going down the
street that's much stronger very much
better from a curvilinear
okay right but anyway have talked to all
the neighbors share the plans with them
and have a doctor that's why no one's
here 16 people who are our closest
neighbors signed off and said we love
everything that david
of bexley because we love the community
feel and the look and and like i said
the street is pretty special so i
respect every bit of criticism critical
like i wouldn't have for the things that
we're doing
what's the derivation of hoggraph
photography is german it means high lord
grandpa it's just been short i just had
to ask the perfect test all right
anybody in the audience for against this
case please
no they're patiently waiting for their
case hopefully
and i appreciate everybody's patience
here very much
um
are there any other questions i mean i
think the issue is right before our
noses we just have to decide uh on it
and uh can we have if we don't have any
further comments can we have findings in
fact conclusions law
what's the width of the section of
driveway that you want to replace some
cobblestone going running north and
south
yeah give me a dimension uh five feet
yeah
or it should be somehow
whatever that's
[Music]
what's the dimension of the sidewalk
side four yeah i would just do that
before
yeah i think it's going to look odd with
yet another dimension
it's right above the two cracks he's
already put the curve yeah i i just i
don't know why you wouldn't just
well you've got to get rid of the cracks
but it looks like
concrete up to the crack and then the
rest
yeah so if you say four feet you're
gonna
and it's four feet three inches to the
end of the crack if they're going to be
in the bed well but there's there's a
score line yeah you're replacing after
that score line
no further than the score line i think
that's what we'd like to say yeah i just
didn't know where to head
172 feet wide that's a very wide lot and
like a 16-foot driveway not even
10 percent
okay all right let's do the calculation
it's less than 29 of the total footprint
of the yard
with this efficiency
probably ready to move
melissa
i hate to slow you down here but i want
to get this moving so i need to not
bother cathy while she's
oh are you yeah findings the fact that
losing the law lots of man's friends
oh i didn't know that it was a formal
discussion here
i apologize
all right the findings affect the
decision of the board for application
number vcap-20
we're probably located at 107 ashbourne
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence testimony
before the board finds the applicant has
proven that the criteria to grant area
variance in mexico section 122611c have
been met
and a 4.5 foot variance from mexico in
section 1262.01
e to allow a driveway to be expanded to
16 feet with four feet of cobblestone on
the south side two feet of cobblestone
on the north side with the following
condition that a section of concrete
drive
on the property side of the sidewalk
be replaced with cobblestone to the
first score line
and no more than six feet in width
all right i think you got it does that
sound right to you gentlemen
um do you want to add the
column the two by two by two i can
approve that if this number higher than
2d i can sign up on that do we do an
application for that or how do we use
like a fence permit okay
no don't don't get into the whole fence
for a minute
talk to your neighbors before you do the
best
right
we have
do i hear a
motion to approve the fighting effect so
moved thank you mr marshall
sorry
who is motioned
to be marsh
thank you alicia second you guys are
worn down
yeah we're getting worn out yeah this is
early
this is certainly some we've gone till
two in the morning a couple of times
mr turner yes
mr hurst yes
miss mitchell
yes mr schick yes and chairman b hall i
also vote yes
gentlemen beautiful beautiful work here
thank you thank you very much
keep keep on my walk around i love you
stop in any time seriously keep playing
who plays the piano
keep playing the piano yeah yeah can you
hear it at your house well well i i
walked by too
yeah
and that would be scary don't say it
just the pianos was it was a request
don't push your luck
all right
uh the next case involves 2220 east
livingston avenue
uh it's case b z ap 22-13
the applicant is dan klein the owner is
the sheer family llc
gentlemen
if you would raise your right hand
please state your names
dan klein dan
ryan
pardon me counselor
oh all right we got council here and
everything going
um
the applicant well let me swear you in
first of all you don't have to be sworn
in but uh but dan does i don't know why
we swear in architects and not lawyers
you know i don't know how that works but
you
swear or affirm that the testimony
you're gonna give us this evening will
be the truth although it's nothing but
the truth thank you very much
and
uh
this is uh
a request for a parking variance
architectural review and approval and a
certificate of appropriateness for a new
paint
and interior build out for a laundromat
correct what is it currently it's it's
shuttered now isn't it
it was a convenience store oh that's
right
bars across the windows
right no i remember it yeah and you know
i saw today i drove by just to see what
the situation was and
uh it was boarded up and i said geez
what was that you know funny how that
goes
what happens when you're on medicare
all right
uh staff
report ms
rose
okay
i know how you're doing this i mean your
stamina is amazing it's not two in the
morning though it's not yet
okay uh
see us the applicant is seeking a
parking variant
uh for the use
and did we mention it's a conditional
use as well
due to the fact of the intensity
right it was it's i think it's not
permitted to see us
the district
now it's not a condition it's a parking
variance based on based on the use which
we felt was a high intensity
so this property
is required to have 12 parking spaces
however
the
parking space is proposed and karen if
you want to put that site plan up
there actually are 12 parking spaces on
site one is a 15 minute parking space
and
there's two employee parking spaces
beyond that 15-minute parking space that
that runs along the west side of this
building
and that's for like drop-off laundry but
so uh can we make that
sorry i don't know why okay
well that's fine okay so to the left is
north
and so there's livingston avenue and i
do want to share
that the city has been
uh
working with collaborating with the city
of columbus on a joint livingston avenue
plan
and in that it's uh regarding landscape
improvements and enhancements
there's a short term
to enhance the landscaping and then
there's a long term where they're
looking for 20-foot urban sidewalk
conditions and street trees and such
currently the city of bexley does not
have
property
bordering the south side of this
property it is columbus at the sidewalk
and beyond that sidewalk up into the
property is the
bexley residence
ownership
so so we are working with the city of
columbus to get a 20-foot easement to do
these landscape improvements and try to
just enhance the corridor of livingston
avenue
so right now we were looking to grab
eight feet and eventually 20.
so when you look at that landscape bed
along the front that's what they're
proposing to add as far as greens escape
and it is actually eight feet at the
west end where you enter into that
approach and 20 feet at the far right
now
being that we do
have 12 spaces they're thinking of
variance
you know to allow the 12 spaces being
that they're not all you know the proper
size and one's only 15-minute parking
and they're in some you know
odd locations
but eventually
we
staff would also like to request that
eventually when we do decide to move
forward with this joint livingston
avenue
improvement
that the board would be willing to grant
a variance to allow 10 parking spaces
should that landscape plan
enhancement go in the two spaces closest
to the approach would most likely be
removed to allow that border to continue
along and and you know beautify the
front of that property
jim chairman b hall before we get any
further into this i sit on that i sat on
that steering committee
and i don't know if i should recuse
myself from
no
just out of proper
mm-hmm
it's all about me is it all about
landscaping it's it's
um
it is it's traffic control it's
landscaping it's hardscape it's it's all
of that so
i just wanna i don't think it is okay
normally a conflict is if well first of
all if you think it creates a bias in
union cannot be objective as a result of
you sitting on that board
or if it has some direct or adverse
impact on you or your property that's
typically what most of those conflicts
are
so if you think that there's no i mean i
sat on it as a as a livingston avenue
resident but also as a member of the
school board
sure no we don't disqualify community
activists
okay
i just want to be sure we appreciate
your activity
yeah no that in my view that does not
create yeah i wouldn't i would agree
with her i don't i don't think that
sounds for me like creates a conflict
for you okay
what we can do
do you feel like you're a prejudiced one
way or another very strongly you know no
if mr klein were your uncle and you
didn't want to rub him the wrong way
we'd ask you to recuse yourself
no i don't think you're my influencer
doesn't look like it to me just off the
cuff yeah all right okay so i'd like to
point out that the existing curb cut is
26 feet in width and that's what's left
over from the original
uh
curb cut that was larger and shared the
parking lot with peking dynasty they you
know put a curve along there and
left that portion there for the this
location to use so we feel that the
remaining curb cut matches that of the
city of columbus standards for this
commercial use um
and which is reviewed in standards in
livingston due to the right-of-way being
located in columbus
so
we'll leave that alone unless you know
this committee review
with livingston avenue
needs that
so
staff would
recommend conditions that the applicant
can provide fencing details for review
and approval by staff
any
any site lighting building lighting or
signage would be submitted for future
applications for review
the low block wall on the eastern edge
of the will be removed and impacted area
will be re-graded and seated
what what's the problem
what wall is he talking is he talking
about the one on the west side no
there's like a two foot high
masonry wall that runs between them and
speedway yeah it's a big wall you're not
gonna drive over
no you can't drive over it
you can trip over it when you try to go
over it yeah
at least lower in a brick so you're not
bumping into it with bumpers and such or
well the irony is that this came out of
a it was a semi-staff meeting that we
had with with the mayor and
jason
and after the meeting we were just
talking my landscape architect actually
mentioned maybe regrading that area a
little bit
the problem is
this is that area
yeah
the rest of my recommendations are
standard so but the problem is
everything that we're talking about
doing is not our property
it's not so that wall that little wall
is like right on the middle of our
property line oh
it's right up against okay that's
understandable so there's i mean we're
going to rework that area a little bit
and take out the broken portion and
probably put a curve in
yeah that's that's actually catches a
bit of it
where it's damaged obviously we're going
to fix that and then maybe
put a shorter retaining wall or a coat
probably are those boards gone yet
no those are the doors they're painted
and okay they are painted okay thank you
so your your eve hangs out
isn't on your property you're eating not
really right now hangs over the property
yeah that happens all over
yeah a lot of garages commercial right
so and karen can speak to i don't i
think the arb just did a consent because
they're basically cleaning up what's
there
really the only area is the paint color
that's right
the concept
we did it as a consent result
so the only kind of outside of the board
comments along with the board's top
board remember telling me that they're
comfortable and consent was that they
were happy to see yeah
and the wall i think it's painted white
and they're going to go with some kind
of a buff color which turn it down a
little bit
okay what they didn't like the color
that's a great they're not the ivory
test is actually it's we're trying to
match close as close as we can to the
restaurant beside us
they've painted i mean somebody on the
left side of this building
painted it white white and i mean it's
very stark
white it's uh nasty looking so i think
we just need to tone it down
no negative comments
okay
well
you know just to look at the
i would tell the city
of bexley or columbus
that the way that livingston cuts
through this particular lot and the
narrowness of the lot
i would rather see
the city have
a green space that goes from two feet to
20 feet then i would have it 20 feet all
the way across in this little parking
lot that's going to be congested
lose two spaces to me it's actually the
20-foot span is from the curb so all of
that's not landscaping it's more of an
eight foot section i think that would be
consistent along the back
and and
and the property line doesn't run
parallel exactly with the street
but it but it's a 20-foot
uh easement that they're looking at
right from the curb not from the
sidewalk i will say i have the that
uh recommendation
for the steering committee that we've
voted on today and um
i think it's necessary for you to put
that condition for the extra two spaces
potentially oh yes
that said i think your enhancement
along with what the city has planned for
that livingston avenue quarter is going
to be really fantastic for you
for your business
yeah there's the white wall
that's white all right
all right um there's if anybody's here
to speak against this one then i'd be
shocked but you want to speak in favor
of it
not exactly but just for clarification's
sake um do we not need a conditional use
because a permitted use is a dry cleaner
but this will be a laundromat i thought
i'm reading jason sooty's staff report
which i've got yesterday so i thought we
had discussed that so that would be what
we would say is a conditional use citing
um 1254.09 other commercial uses similar
a dry cleaner is permitted
we would like to run an alignment
and we thought it was similar enough
that we make it a conditional use if
there's anything that you think it needs
conditioned because of that use
let me know are you guys changing out
the sign
or is it grandfathered in are you going
to keep the pylons on you're going to
get a monument they'll be submitting
that themselves
the rooftop venting the same that's
needed for dry cleaner for laundromats
it's different
there's going to be a lot of ventilation
it's not like a it's not the same we
don't have the chemicals
okay
you know what the hours are going to be
24
it will be staffed 24 hours
well if you're okay with the 12 parking
spaces
i don't see why we wouldn't be okay with
it i mean it's
and with the condition that it could go
down to 10
yeah but i mean
you know what
uh
can the city force them to go down to
ten
well if it's if it's to make to make
this plan
implemented
that happens but this is a variance
situation here put the if you would put
the uh
i just work here
i just live here i don't really do much
else
i need to see the uh
yeah right i like it this way i mean
it's a parallelogram isn't it almost i
mean it
those sight yeah
yeah isn't that what i mean i'm going
way back to my
geometry days i wasn't that good at it
but i
but it's close is the applicant okay
with the requirement or restriction or
about that if the parking can be reduced
by two spaces they'd rather not yeah
he'd rather have more parking spaces
than fewer cooks but i think from a
safety perspective just maneuvering
around that little place
for them to say i'll give you what
what's already marked in dark on the
right hand side
i think is we ought to go thank you very
much for giving us that and yeah may you
rest in peace and and do plenty of
business there
i i think to say hey we're gonna we want
to do this on the condition that you
agree in the future you're gonna give up
two parking spaces i'm not in favor of
that i just don't think that makes sense
with that kind of an angle
cutting through the front of the lot if
it were squared off to the street i'd
agree
it's not squared off the street you're
never going to be squared off that
street's going to be there i thought she
was saying that she didn't want him to
be dinged for not having those spaces if
the city tried to
or
took two spaces i that's what i promised
columbus would cause the
two spaces
right
um
yeah but bexley's giving them the
variance yeah their work yeah they're
working together how's trash gonna be
handled
when you're you're gonna i don't see a
dumpster on
we were thinking either probably the
totes there's gonna be a new fence put
in between us and the restaurant
um
and there's two gates there and totes
would be inside that fenced in area i
don't i mean i don't know much about
laundromat that's
what's their trash generation there
shouldn't be a whole lot empty bottles
[Music]
they can handle that on with totes i
would assume
not a good because there's no way they
could put a dumpster back there and then
are you guys locking all it locking that
gate
oh yeah in fact well
i've met with the restaurant owner and
he's he's going to have his own key too
so because it's he's got to get access
to his uh
grease interceptors grease
traps back there somewhere
or they gotta empty it back there
a lot of grease trap talk tonight yeah
really
dirty
well
i don't think anybody i'm not hearing
anybody that sounds like they're opposed
to the program that's being
suggested here i'm just saying
i don't think that i'd want to condition
their
variance on
them willingly giving up two parking
spaces i i would say when the time comes
let them negotiate with the city and see
how it goes
ten years down the line before it gets
there
yeah i agree do you yeah
if we ran our landscaping parallel with
the sidewalk you're right then we've
we've already got the square footage
yeah yeah area there in other words if
you ran it
eight feet all the way down it doesn't
buy you any parking spaces correct
doesn't so i'm okay with this
squared off
you know parallel to the front of your
building essentially is that line
that the four is sitting on top of there
right
or to the side of
well anyway so
did we resolve the conditional use
so i'm lucky and here's what i think
please
um
i i can understand your concern and i
think maybe just a clarification of the
record of what you believe um
would you call a longer matt use a dry
cleaner no
just look just a longer dry cleaner be
easy
i understand
so here's here is the
the
karen you want to bring up code yeah
i knew you did
code
49
i i'm going to need 12 54 09
and i'm also going to need
12 30 73.
so let's start with the 1254.09
i'm just going to go over this quickly
because i know everybody's had enough
but let's because that book deserves to
be experienced that their use is okay
okay so these are the uses that are
permitted in the commercial districts
and if you look at cs under permitted
uses and you go to the second one down
on the left
it says keep that down a little bit here
right there
on the left side right there it says
retail services to include photographic
studios dry cleaners barber and beauty
shops and small item repair services
right and they are permitted uses in the
cs district
right
now it doesn't it doesn't say laundromat
just generally retail services it seems
to include but not limited to right so
karen if you take me to twelve thirty
point seven three wait just before you
do that yeah would it be under retail
sales providing special convenience
service
and it's kind of what they're doing
right
what is what is it say again right below
that very conditional use retail sales
providing a
convenience user yeah i mean that to me
so this might help answer that mr turner
i mean maybe 12 30 73 is the definition
of what the code considers retail sales
and retail services and 12
30 72 is retail convenience so look how
smart you guys are
right there twelve thirty
okay point seven two and seven three
so seven two is what mr turner was
talking about and seven three is what is
in the next thing okay so retail
convenience is a commercial enterprise
having its primary function as a sale of
goods and services directly to a
consumer for goods for sale or
goods for sale are available for
immediate purchase and removal of the
right
so that's retail convenience then we
have retail sales and retail services
and that's where as you recall when we
were back in the other one we were
talking about
retail services including dry cleaners
so you can uh
and i would say i can read that to you
but you can read it yeah
it's more of that
we get the gist of it yeah
so the question is if you believe that a
laundry mat would be included in retail
services then i suggest that in your
findings you can just make that finding
that you determine that it is included
exactly services
if you don't believe that it is because
of the way that that's worded then
then the question is is it something
that requires a conditional use permit
and then you can make a decision
relating to those factors
would it be safer for the applicant if
we just
decided whether we want to give them a
conditional use permit
um it's safest if they know what they
are
because conditional use permit just
drags you into figuring out what is a
conditional use permit for which would
be
retail
sales for
special convenience store service
is that what you're thinking it is
i don't know
so the question is what is it most
similar to
um is a laundry mat
a retail service
from the perspective of a laundromat
typically
i mean you buy something environmentally
you worry about dry cleaners because the
chemicals that they use on site and yet
it's permitted use and that's a pretty
intense use right so when you're talking
about retail services and instead of a
dry cleaner it is
i mean you know it's self-serve
yeah
it's not somebody's not providing those
services to you but it's available well
yeah but somebody provides the service
to keep all the machines operational to
make sure that there's soap and coin
machines or whatever you have nowadays
in these places right so somebody is
providing a service to you there
or is it a retail sale and you can
services so it's retail convenience or
it's regis retail sales providing
special convenience service that's
really
if you figure out what you call it then
you figure out whether you need a
conditional use i think it's 9.73
i think we're all okay with what they're
doing here yeah i think the use is fine
i think we should pick one and say that
that's how we we're gonna
classify it i think what's positive here
is that it says the primary function of
the convenience the sale of goods
instead of for immediate purchase
removal for the premises whereas the
seventh three the very last retail sales
and retail services do not include the
purchase of goods here you're taking
your items
if you're purchasing a service you're
not purchasing a good that's true
so you think retail companies you might
buy soap there is that where you're
saying this yeah but that'll be the
primary that's not the primary okay
you think it's retail services yes it
fits within the definition of retail
services so you would need no
conditional use
that's right
no you wouldn't need a 7-3 home
be retail service
which dry cleaning is a retail service
but this is a sort of a self-service
retail service
we're getting on the edge all night
aren't we all right
all
right
you know we complained about having too
many garage variants to so this is what
you get
so there you go
[Music]
where's that in the front of the back of
the house i forget where that is
i shouldn't have brought that up i
should have brought that up um
uh
first of all there's nobody here to
discuss this case obviously
can i ask the mayor if i've
stated the livingston
improvements correctly i wasn't involved
in any of those meetings he was okay
okay
i just want to clarify as a staff
comment so we we jason and i worked
together
in crafting that staff report and what
there was a i think a misconception
about with the variants for parking
spaces which is
that
what we're suggesting is that they'd be
allowed to variants as low as 10 not
because the city can just force them to
lower parking spaces but because if ever
there's future right-of-way acquisition
which would be a totally separate
process that would involve the property
owner that they have the zoning right to
have less parts
so if there's an eminent domain action
you're saying or if they lose their
spaces right they don't lose their
variance this way exactly do you think
that's safer for your client yes okay i
do too thank you i just wanted to
specify thank you appreciate it and i
want to make sure that i state that
correctly then in the condition so i
would say it's
flexibility to allow 10 parking spaces
as part of the future
to draw as little as few as 10 spaces if
uh
we don't need to have that you just put
put a variance of as few as ten spaces
you don't yeah yeah you don't need to
put the whole thing that's gonna happen
you should do that okay gotcha thank you
thank you i mean you're gonna want as
many spaces you can get so you're not
gonna reduce it right on purpose right
okay
now that you have to re-completely
rewrite your findings of fact and
conclusions of law are you in north
korea
thought the survey should i thought the
survey showed it on your property
anyways but
we've got to clean it up and this would
be a private negotiation between you and
speedway all right andrea's question his
question mr turner's question i mean the
survey here i think the property line
looks like the walls on your property
this
you look right here if you look at the
property line the walls on this side of
it but the grading is global with the
walls so if we take the wall the grading
continues on back
beside our building
actually it's up that high
maybe they could work with the staff
consultant on any changes now the other
problem too is the
that's the way to put it light poles
are cast
and they're sticking up pretty high out
of the ground i don't know how far down
around
how much we can lower the ground there
without being underpinning yeah and good
luck working we're working with speedway
i know
well now 7-eleven we have to cut their
trees just to uh paint the side of our
building
[Laughter]
through there
okay wow
all right kathy you had to write a
little bit more there even but i think
that's the right way to handle that wall
okay
findings of fact conclusions of law
the findings affecting decision of the
board for application number bzap
22-13 property located at 2220 east
livingston upon consideration of the
application proposed variance at
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to grant an area of
variance in mexico section 12 26 11 c
have been met and a variance
oh no
oh a variance from mexico section
1262.02 h to allow 12 parking spaces
as proposed in
with the flexibility
oh to allow 10 parking spaces
as few as as few as 10 parking spaces
uh and the board further finds that the
use is included in the retail service in
accordance with
three 1230.73
and
permitted in the cs district
as permitted in the cs district and is
permitted and is permitted in the cs
district
and with the following conditions
that the applicant provide fencing
details for review and approval by staff
any site lighting building lighting or
signage will be submitted
as a future application for review the
below block wall on the eastern edge
will be improved subject to staff review
and approval
that the applicant re application be
reviewed and approved by the bexley tree
and public garden commission
and the site modification designs and
materials will be in substantial
conformance with the rendering and plans
submitted at the april 28th board of
zoning and planning meeting unless
otherwise modified in collaboration with
the arb and staff
counselor mr klein you agree
that sounds complete and thorough there
any member of the board one modifying
anything that was read no if not i would
entertain a motion to
approve the findings of fact conclusions
of law motion
thank you second second thank you alicia
please call the role yes
miss mitchell yes
mr westlake yes mr marsh yes mr turner
yes chairman video i also vote yes good
job thank you very much thank you for
your patience waiting here all night
like that can i see you when were these
pictures taken pictures that are in
to pick the pictures that you guys
do i mean where they taking last couple
weeks
just these pictures of your building uh
no they were probably
four weeks ago okay
all right
i just wonder if kathy we can do
something do you see all that trash
there and that's terrible that's
speedway oh yes i called a massive one
that's that same question when was this
taken
yeah but yes there's no worse
since then it's no worse than chipotle
um did you see that yeah i mean when i
remember the when they were in
for their new science stuff
for your patients exactly the same i
mean
i'm so happy i don't want to join
this is case
a rb
22-17
and
b-zap 22-15
the address is 694 south cassingham
the applicant and the owner are michael
lang
the
applicant is requesting approval of a
variance architectural review and
approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for an addition to the
rear of the second floor over the
existing first floor footprint and
kitchen remodel
that summarize it yep please state your
name michael wang michael do you swear
or affirm that you'll give testimony
that's truthful
to this panel this evening
i do thank you
i'm too tired to say that thing the same
way every time all right
ms rose
so
i didn't get to this part of my staff
report but i've got a pretty good memory
okay so this application was actually
before the architecture review board for
a two-story addition to the rear of the
existing principal structure
i believe this is the r6 zoning district
and this is a 40-foot lot which requires
a side yard
setback of 6.6 feet
the applicant
proposed edition
was originally in line with the existing
structure
which is non-conforming and encroaches
into both of those side yard setbacks
the architecture review board reviewed
this case and made some suggestions with
regards to offsetting on both sides one
side but he was to work with karen on
all these modifications that they had
suggested
so
in working with the existing structure i
believe there may have been some
modifications to
lessen the
request of the original variance to the
side yard setback
and i'm not sure what the final
footprint setback was for that well
we'll let him tell us how's that um or
do you know
like to hear karen
and let me know what those sideyard
setbacks were originally yeah so
i mean my suggestion for this board is
just to approve
no more than what is proposed in the
submitted plan because
but what the architecture review board
conditioned this on is working with me
to offset some of the new additions as
well as some of the roof lines in the
process of working out these details
um together
some of the two bites some of the
interior walls don't quite line up the
same way that the architecture viewboard
envisioned it doing and that's typical
so i just need to have enough leeway in
the variance
to work with mr lang on getting
both interior and exterior walls roof
peaks to line up architecturally
and my suggestion is really just to
approve if this board chooses to improve
the variance
to improve what's been submitted because
we may actually have to do one side
flush
and one side steps it won't be
completely flush i mean the existing so
again
no square footage is added to the house
of the footprint of the home okay all
we're doing is going straight up uh-huh
and
what are the issues
well the issue is the side yard setback
is supposed to be six and a half feet it
is currently five and a half feet on the
side to the south there's no other
encroachment on any area and against a
house built in 1928 i don't know what
year the code overlay came and the
height is 36 36.5 feet um and the height
is supposed to be 36 feet so i'm six
inches actually it's 35.
and it's 36.6 i think it's it's six
inches too tall and one foot too close
35 i know it's a height limit so if
you're telling me it's 36 six and it's
one point five i believe it was six
inches too tall you know roofs so again
it's existing conditions we're not
raising the height of the roof i'm not
extending one square foot
in any direction i'm just going up over
the addition that's already there from
the 50s
and going up over the kitchen bump out
which was there since 1928. so we are
going to step back much like the siding
steps back in the front and that's
original uh area siding we're gonna do
an inset window on the back we tried to
do something that's you know sensitive
to the house but not look like a giant
edition on the back so i mean we'll do
the offsets as as appropriate um as long
as we can work with staff on what
actually makes sense instead of some
doing an arbitrary four-inch
setback
that would be obviously what i'd love to
see today it became
crystal clear that certainly knows what
he's doing
construction
giving him the leeway to work with me on
final details of the offsets and the
roofline
um
it's a given box it's not
is it true that you have building skills
i've been here 22 years i don't have any
intention of moving
talking about a forever home i don't
know if 22 years plus 15 is forever but
that's kind of the point close enough
yeah close enough so i drove by it today
to look at it and it looks it looked to
me like
really
made a lot of sense and and i don't see
that it's any particularly big intrusion
on anybody or anything there so
your neighbors on either side have any
they were they're here in support last
time they couldn't come this time too
okay also i just would point out these
elevations are just not look at the
pictures more than elevations when you
have the hip roof like this it really
it gives you the wrong impression that
there's a bit taller than it's
pulling away
there's just
[Music]
we're very sensitive to roofs around
here
i'm well aware
well you know i've been in to see kathy
a few times over the years i don't have
to ask the questions anybody here to
comment on this
project picked one way the other because
there's nobody that's a little awake
that was here earlier
and builder i appreciate your patience
too i mean that this is a long time to
wait for this it is uh it is tough tough
work you are all asked to do and the pay
is lousy so
that is true
you did give me cookies
all right any
questions or comments from any members
of the board
kirk or
melissa
i mean i think the way you you state the
findings of fact is is going to be
important but i think what she's
suggesting makes sense not you yeah
let's just say
give them some leeway out to this point
you know and it could be a little bit
more or a little bit less rather
less less
no more than normal
yeah
yeah yeah
kind of grow out there
it's here apparently even though they
have current non-conforming side you're
except back in the current
non-conforming height
the law of non-conforming just would say
you can't expand them right so that's
why you're for variance because
obviously they're gonna you know it
makes sense you're gonna keep that
non-conformity and continue the house
you may just want a grand variance for
the whole thing that way it's not
non-conforming he doesn't have these
issues you can do whatever he has to do
as it relates to the house
at that side you're sent back all the
way back
um and then you don't have the
constraint of what's not conforming with
variants it just gets very confusing
yeah if i had to
try to change the door later i'd rather
not have to come back through it yes if
that's possible yeah i mean the house is
built in 28 i mean so it's it's been
here a while yeah i've been here 22
years and yeah that was the other
question they said well didn't you know
when you bought it no did you know it's
a non-conforming lot no i mean none of
this was disclosed until i filed this
application yeah interesting yeah
there were two 40-foot lots approved
earlier today which were also
non-conforming lots so that's right yeah
not quite sure what that whole
non-performing lot thing is
yeah interesting yeah for his house for
the house structure
you guys are
are you all okay with the suggestion
that uh catherine made yeah yep
can you modify that yes
i think so same thing with hyped all
right so i'm going to read the variance
and then i'll read the certificate of
appropriateness
the findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number
bzap-22-15 for property located at 694
south cassingham
upon consideration of the application
proposed variants and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant an area of variance in mexico
section 12 26-11 c have been met
and a one-foot variance to the side yard
setback on both the north and south
sides
and a 1.5 foot variance to the height of
the existing and proposed of the
existing structure and the proposed
two-story addition to the rear of the
principle structure
be approved
in substantial conformance with the
renderings and plan dated
april 28th 2022.
that's the variance okay
so let's do that right a foot on the
other side i only need the south side
there's no other encroachment on any
other part of the property
thank you
so i'll amend that so it's that there's
one existing one foot variance to the
south side so the
north side meets code existing and
proposed yes and you don't need it for
whatever you're planning on doing
no we that's architectural review issue
that they just it still might be in set
on the north side but it doesn't have to
do with
the existing structure to make it
conforming that way yes
right so one foot to the south side yard
setback
and the north side yard even if you do
the bump outs and whatever you can live
with
[Music]
anybody want to make that emotion i'll
make it
please
thank you
all right uh let me call the roll please
uh mr marsh yes mr turner yes
mr westlake yes miss mitchell yes
mr schick yes and chairman b hall
i vote yes also nice project
good luck with it thank you very much
thank you for your patience waiting this
long for your case
oh yeah i forgot about that yes i'm
sorry
so the findings in fact the decision of
the board for easy ap 22-15 for
2694 south cassingham road the board
finds that a certificate of
appropriateness should be granted in
accordance with the recommendation from
the architects review board
and all
modifications are further subject to
review and approval by the
design consultant
very good
works for you works for me motion to
approve please
thank you second
second thank you
please call the roll
mr weslac yes
mr marsh yes
miss mitchell yes mr shea yes mr turner
yes chairman b hall i vote yes also good
luck with your project thank you all
very much thank you
i mean look at the bright side you got
to be variants and cookies
[Laughter]
you only had to wait till uh
10 15 to get those babies
well you got i hope you got
you got to see the sausage being made
as they say all right we have some other
business which is the review of
ordinance 13-22 and review of ordinance
14-22 which we probably are not going to
spend a half an hour on so let's let the
mayor uh make a brief presentation or
and councilman klingler can make
the
presentation as well we won't swear you
two guys in
thanks
so um as you guys know the zoning code
requires any changes to the zoning code
to receive bzap
review
doesn't require you to approve of them
council has to decide that ultimately
but asks for your input
i love it if you agreed with changes
that the council is proposing but
it's we don't know what council does
until they vote so
we have two ordinances um that are being
considered by council right now that
involve changes to the zoning code the
first one is 1322 which is the bzap
appeals code and it is cogent to
a hearing that you had earlier this
evening
[Music]
the
this ordinance was drafted with mr
klingler
following feedback from your chair
that section 1226.18
might want to be looked at
and clarified and i think your chair
this evening called it something like a
horrendously awful section of something
very interesting
was
[Laughter]
so we reviewed that and we made it clear
that it's the and whether or not you
guys agree and this is i know that this
is coming full circle back to the
beginning of the meeting but
the applicant that has the right to
appeal decisions of the zoning officer
and arb
with the exception of and that gets you
down to the next page
uh
12 23.05 decisions which are our
demolition code so in situations where
we have a demolition new build
it would allow for
those withstanding to appeal arv
decisions
and
the the reason it's been crafted how it
is
is because decisions of the zoning
officer or arb are already allowed by
right and our code
so an applicant has the right to do that
thing arb reviews aesthetics
but the form of the of the improvement
is allowed it doesn't have a variance
so the thought there is that it it
provides the applicant with the right of
appeal if they felt it
unjustly denied um
but does not provide the same to
non-applicants unless it's something
that rises to that demolition new build
uh piece the arb review process that's a
decision that i'll let matt kind of talk
about because it was he was steering
this particular piece
yeah
i hope this um clarifies and cleans up
code that's the goal of this um
you know frankly put
um
we appoint
you all as council and arb
we rely on your expertise
um but we also rely on the expertise of
the zoning officer
um
so when when something
is allowed allowable by law
we don't feel
that it's any right of
the neighbor next door to say i don't
like such that you're doing
um when it's a simple permit decision
so
that's that's as
frank as i can put it i wholeheartedly
agree with you actually and you know
i was debating the whole time as the
mayor and i talked and i said geez i
mean how many permits do you guys grant
a year and for what kind of little
things and we can't have appeals on
every
right application for a daggone permit
you know it doesn't make any sense right
i agree i like the change i think the
change cleans it up beautifully with the
middle
so my question though i thought so yeah
i'm sorry to phrase it but my question
is what i feel like a lot of the board's
concerns related to the 1220 language
which was the powers and authorities of
bzap
i don't think there was as much concern
about the language that's here at least
from the conversation today so
let's look at 12 20.
12 29. can i ask ask you that so
in the case this evening what would dr
ridgeway's three point so he has none
now yes
okay so that's i love this question and
and if it's okay mr chair mr turner
asked what would mr ridgeway's recourse
have been in this instance so mr ridgway
is a neighbor of a property owner who
had a full legal right to construct
defense where they could start to
defense as as permitted by our law right
defense was constructed it was only
after the fence was constructed that mr
ridgway became aware of it and wanted to
appeal that decision
mr ridgway could bring suit against the
city if he felt the city had improperly
applied its zoning code through the
zoning officer
but
i certainly hope that we're not trying
to say that we live in a community where
you can in good faith rely upon the
guidance of our code and our zoning
officer and install windows or a deck or
shingles on your roof or
a porch over your front door
and then
be at risk at any given moment to have
that torn off your property because a
neighbor feels in retrospect that they
don't like the zoning code and that's
what i would say is there is not within
our zoning code recourse for a situation
like mr ridgway because there shouldn't
be we have property rights we have the
ability to install
you know install a deck according to
code
that gets reviewed by staff and gets
permitted the only alternative is if
every single permit
that's exterior facing
gets notification to every every
neighbor that's the only that's the only
solution and that no name no community
does that and it would be it would be
such a burden for our company
so i just i want to affirm
but there are some remedies now let's
say
they get an application for a fence
and uh it's six foot and every and it's
what
is it within the setbacks and
everything's right with it only when
they actually build it they build the
ugly side toward the neighbor and they
keep the good looking side toward them
and it's absolutely against code
miss doctor
what's his name bridgewood bridgewater
thank you very much i'm getting tired
sorry dr rajway if you're listening
and
uh
he could go to the city and go hey you
know you gave them a permit but they
built this the wrong way yeah but that's
different because because they're
they're they're in violation of the code
they've got offensive violations of code
right the question the question he has
here is he believes the fence is in
violation of the code the zoning officer
doesn't
so it's not the same it's not the same
thing as they can put the fence up
backwards it's more
it's more of him questioning the
questioning what the interpretation of
the code is what it is
and there's i mean there's a civil
remedy if he feels like he wants to
pursue it but it's not against it's not
against the property owner it's against
the city in this instance what's
happening is you have one property owner
going against another property owner
essentially right trying to extract
property rights from them that we and
and so i just think we're missing we're
kind of confusing forums here and
remedies
so though i i asked karen to put out
thanks ben
12 20.
12 2002
because that seemed to cause members
concern
particularly to your b-hall where's that
sorry wouldn't you well
l and i think this is what the
commission the board struggled with
is it seems to be sort of this blanket
language that you can hear and decide
anything
versus when you get to the appeals
specific statute it's really kind of
honing that in so and we could say in
accordance with 126.18 yes you could
and i think you should and just add that
in there yeah yeah so i think that that
let's we're just gonna
have you abandoned
that's fine what is it
you're 12
the other thing i would say about that
is essentially what you know what
you have to have staff that we want
staff members to be talking to members
of the community who call but we can't
have every opinion that a staff member
gives over the telephone
decision
i don't like the word determinations
i don't know what is a determination
if you feel like you could you can leave
that language like i do too
yeah
and decisions
and you know
a decision if they make a decision
that's one thing um
what was the scope of the decision yeah
well or orders
i mean
what do we do in the circumstances
[Music]
commit to somebody and they go out and
do something but
could be code
enforcement well i would go out there
and review it and let them know if it
meets code or if it doesn't meet code
and you say
you think it needs code but they don't
think it does
i guess i don't what i don't see is a
problem is
why we don't give an avenue for
people it doesn't mean that we're
excited with them
but they have a right to appeal we're
not necessarily
i don't think we're hoping
where people are going to start hey
it's a radical concept which is that you
put a new roof on your house
and you're relying upon the
determination of zoning officer and your
neighbor can now come back and say i
really don't like that decision i don't
i'd like you to to reverse it
so that
it's not that they don't have a route
they have a they could they could sue
the city for
not
properly you know allowing you to have a
tannery and we have all sorts of
services we provide all day long and
in the in the way that we provide aprons
to properties and water lines and sewer
where residents have
legal routes but it doesn't involve
bringing in the
you know your neighbor what if he paints
it pink trying to get them to reverse so
we don't have a regulation on colors of
fences so
where do you go to argue that
we don't like chartreuse
no listen
we've had instances where we have when
when a person did something that clearly
was outside of code or in interrogation
of the permit that they were given
we have them tear it out i mean we had
to tear a roof over here out that was
part of the at columbia place situation
right
uh and then we went in and we ended up
changing the bylaws of the of the pud
there but they had to take that roof
off after they put it on because they
didn't comply with the law
so you still have the right to do that
they got to stop work order because
yeah yeah
exact same
so we do have a way of making people
tear things down but it but if it's
nuanced
then
what he's saying is you you can't get
into nuances and that's why we don't
have appeals
they make their decisions and and we
hire these people that know what they're
doing
and
we we're going to have to live they're
wrong we live with them
i think is is what the the
philosophy has become
who's being damaged so who's being
damaged if you're a neighbor and you
don't like
that window
i mean come on you're not being damaged
by that that's the that that the the
person being damaged by a wrongful
decision of the zoning officer is the
applicant who has a right and the code
to do something
and is denied it and then can come to
you and say look the code says i can do
it it's my property
they're the person being damaged
although
well you do all the time with variances
and that's that's the point the code has
said
you you buy a property in bexley and as
long as you're vested in the current
code you know what you can do and you
can't do
or you know what you can do and you need
special approval for it so that level of
predictability
and that level of certainty and that
level of security is part of what
underpins our rights as property owners
and the value of the real estate that we
purchase so i think what you're saying
is true personally i think when you get
into a variance or situation where
you're asking for more than the code
allows and then all bets are off then
all of a sudden it really matters what
your neighbors think and it matters what
this how the board turns but when it
comes to your innate property rights
those that are provided to you by law
that shouldn't be subject to in my
opinion to retraction at any moment
after you've made that investment
i don't see this attraction i guess it's
even more of an opportunity um
the person who's been damned the person
who's been damaged that neighbor
is the damages aren't then going on to
the next door neighbor who who in good
faith installed something per what the
staff said
and that's i think that's a real
difference because they can pursue us we
are accountable but this forum bringing
the neighboring who installed the fence
and put that investment in is not the
correct form
and i would have to you know i'm sure
there's somewhere if it does go to a
court or something that i would have to
justify my reasoning for my decision
we could cross examine you man we have
fun running yes yeah
all right i mean i think this is a good
discussion
very good discussion and you know i
think that l
so
wait see how it interacts with the with
the other statute that you changed but
this says
that we have how does the first line
read at the top
um
karen
that's okay
borders only planning
duties planning review shall be
the border zoning in planning review
shall be applicable to all zoning
districts
these apps shall have the following
powers and duties
under that word got to me a little bit
too but i think it's okay here under the
provisions of this zoning ordinance then
you can add to l
we have the power and duty to hear and
decide appeals
from and to review orders decisions or
determinations made by the zoning
officer or the architectural review
board
subject to 1226.18.
okay and 1226.18 is going to say
um
that you can
that that
i just need to look at that for two
seconds again now
the new one
hey
and the border zoning and planning here
and after the board shall have the power
to hear and decide appeals
by an applicant okay
brian echo from a decision
or we thought maybe we should be a
written decision after hearing some of
the conversation tonight yeah
because later on it talks about written
in the same statute yeah
by announcement from a decision
determination or i mean you want to
stick that wording in there again
you know
final order adjudication or decision
i like it because a determination sounds
like a permit
final order adjudication or decision
final order
adjudication or decision yep yeah i like
that
better you know
so we put um
should we put something in there about
the written decision of the
architectural review board or zoning
officer
and where
um issuance of a permit is considered
because that was the other question that
came up issuance of the permit
constitutes zoning approval
because she doesn't write an actual
zoning approval letter as well as the
permit right she just issues the
permit decision
when you issue a permit like a fence
permit do you
you
stamp and sign it and
our new system
everything's in in the program and the
applicant actually gets a printout so
they get a piece of paper they do they
they they it prints it goes to their
email and they print it out beautiful
yeah but does it say zoning approval or
does it say all of the tracking's on
there comments i make comments we make
it back and forth okay i just want to
make sure it's covered because his his
question was that kathy never sent a
written
okay i'm just
fine i'm just making sure it's clear
we're all in agreement i'm just making
sure it's clear what would happen what
normally would happen is
that a written comment would be issued
either a stamp of plans that signed or
it could be as kathy says now is
generated if it had not met zoning the
permit would not have been issued that's
part of staff's review right so if steph
comes in now one of mr bihal's comments
as it relates to the offense was when a
permit comes in they are not required to
provide a rendering of defense
now whether staff who
choose to change that
[Music]
also
okay i just want to make sure that it's
i mean if there's he had a question of
when that timing was i just want to make
sure everybody's clear on when that
timing is so it doesn't happen again
yeah i think i mean that is the original
determination was the permit
and then
the attempt was to appeal a subsequent
phone conversation but the original
determination
was just reaffirming
okay several phone conversations well i
certainly
since i'm the number one uh critique
giver here i certainly appreciate the
swiftness with which
the city council and the mayor have
acted here because i think it's just
better if it's clear for everybody and i
appreciate that usually take eight years
to get something like that done so i
appreciate you guys doing that so
rapidly really i do very very silly you
too yeah i'll bet you youtube
just from uh from a perspective of
branding ourselves to the community um
bees app is appeals and planning
should we
consider that
zoning
yes so you're appealing somebody's
appealing to code when they come to you
code doesn't let me
do this above my garage
this is my appeal to you i want a
bathroom looks like you're doing your
sauna yeah i'm gonna have to come here
because i want to break plenty of meals
yeah you'll still get them all right
and i
we do yes sorry don't get me
do we need a
i can't remember is this discussion or
there's like a vote they have to make a
recommendation okay so you can i know
you're seeing this for the first time
tonight i know it's been a long meeting
i wouldn't ask you to make a
recommendation on this unless you guys
felt comfortable on it
so it's your call what you want
i'm comfortable yeah
sean i'm good you're recommending it
right yeah yeah as as we've admitted as
we've discussed yeah
let me have a motion if somebody will
give one motion to approve the the
modification
uh to not approve but to recommend
approval
of the modifications to the two code
sections that we've been discussing here
this evening in accordance with
ordinance 13-22
fine
yep
right
second
second thank you kurt
uh
i think we could say all in favor
aye aye
all opposed
no i hear no opposition the
motion passes unanimously and we need to
do that for both code sections or
separately
he's talking about the truth
amendment
proposed amendment um okay the next
ordinance is 1422.
there's another attachment in your
agenda which you might need to refresh
your screen because i added it
but it's a uh
it's a zoning review that we received
from
a
solar advocacy group so the fox
this is a solar advocacy group and it
talks about
our code and recommended recommended
changes and
kind of addresses some of the common
concerns about those changes what i will
tell you and i i
can't recall how many of these you've
heard of any
but the arb has heard quite a few solar
panel applications
and
we have three next months i think i can
say this
in a way that only mildly offends
certain arab members but it has been a
fairly grueling process
even though our code allows for solar on
roofs both front and back
subject to some limitations and
conditions
it's still this it's this it's a long
kind of gut-wrenching process every time
and usually
it ends up in approval of exactly what
was proposed
and
uh the recommendation we have here is
that staff review based upon design
criteria that's proposed within this
code and that that's adequate
and
would not go to arb in this instance
we added in a lot of arb controls early
on because it was kind of a new thing
and you know we're quite sure about it
we've since had experience
um i'm not sure if you guys could think
off the top of your head where we have
solar in the city you might be surprised
in the places we have it um just because
you don't even notice it necessarily but
it's becoming more and more common we
want to make it something that's easy
for people to put on their properties
within the confines of our zoning code
so the markup of 1422 was what karen
originally had up and it essentially
does two two major things first off it
takes it from arb and puts it in a
staff review process for solar
and again that's the way that we treat
any other roofing material unless you're
trying to take off machine uh
um and it also
treats ground-mounted solar that as as
if it were any other accessory structure
we've never had a ground-mounted
application that i'm aware of but should
we have one that would be treated in
form the same as an accessory structure
which is to say it gets that three-foot
setback it's a ten-foot heightened
position
um but currently we have
we have a lot more restrictions around
groundnuts
haven't said i've never heard anyone try
to bring it to the city it's just
that's how that's proposed you can read
the technical analysis of this
i
for this one for sure i think we can
wait for you guys to take a chance to
look at this before you
i know there's a lot going on here uh
before you make any sort of a
recommendation
come back next meeting but also i'd like
to add with just like karen and i with
any other cases that are staff reviewed
and approved when we find something that
we don't think is maybe what it should
be we would defer to the board
but like a good example would be
there are situations where the only
appropriate place to put
these solar panels in a very regular
nice color to match the roof is the
front but occasionally we'll get one
that has plenty of other areas and just
have like
two panels stuck in a weird way on the
front
you know what i'm saying like
i want to have some lateralis that
because i'm learning
and so is kathy um
how that just really doesn't really
science isn't there for that
so it's a process and we do have to have
some availability like somebody said no
i want two little cables and i have to
have some way to take it
but generally
[Music]
did you request this soul smart thing or
did they just send it to you
we're seeking designation from this
group it's a national
uh group
for arlington just designated before us
i make commotion
i wanted to get some initial thoughts
from you like i
i could kind of in my head hear
the individual airbnb members what
they're going to say to me but
yeah
when he presents today rb i'll say
bezaps had a lot of issues with this but
that's how you play it
just
we've had cases where we've said no to
somebody who wanted to put panels on the
front of their house i recall but we
said the front of my house is the one
that faces west or south where i get all
my sign right remember that case
and we said now we rewrote the code to
make it clear that you could put it on
the front of your house i see okay so
that that's where
that predated that change in the statute
okay because i thought we'd had a case
and that's been a while
huh
[Music]
well they did good here
we actually have an application this
month
for tesla
oh really
and i bring that up because like
we're at a point in time like that
should be an ma permit
i
[Music]
my sister-in-law just go on on her house
they're amazing
they're really good
and they look like
but the national
i mean what you're doing is also the
national trend the national trend in
zoning is away from regulating and
allowing it
all right i think that would be
helpful for us to think about this one
for a month is that okay yeah here i
just compliment you on how fast you were
changing the law and now i'm going to
slow you down well i don't want to say i
think it's up to the panel here
just a little bit more
can can we get a copy of this uh email
to us
the the one that has the the line outs
and the additions
this is actually from the website but i
can also
email it okay
thank you very much
yeah it's really helpful because it
gives i mean whether or not you agree
no that's right they sound like they
know what they're talking about yeah
yeah yeah right
that's what might be a little biased all
right anything else we have something
real quickly for you
mr chair i talk to you about this is it
food
[Laughter]
this is not nothing to decide right now
but
they're
uh
at the request of the chair
we prepared those changes to rules and
rags
for these apps that would actually one
of those ryan schick
a couple years ago never got
that's scary sorry that's the first page
so the first page is the ryan chick
amendment it says
[Music]
and then um under section 18 page five
okay is that commenced by 11pm
[Music]
um
appeals
and i think another thing that i'd like
us you know and i did this in columbus
when i was on a bga there and that is
when we know we have this many cases and
we know
that
uh we're gonna have this you know
swimming pool and then we're gonna have
uh
the the
jurisdictional issue
can't we can't we say
that the last four cases aren't gonna
start till seven i mean there's no
prayer in god's earth that we could get
through all those cases by seven
so it just makes them sit there from
seven till ten instead of from six till
ten
you know i mean did you start earlier
no he's just saying let people know they
don't have to be you don't have to get
here stagger the start times yeah well
and the other thing is we're going to
take a a break
if we're going to go
four hours or whatever so yeah can i
just say something um because i think
this address with it just so you know
i always call
this month was
kind of a mess because we had some
agenda changes yeah you were good but
typically what i do is call every single
applicant and tell them where they are
but that's why you usually don't need a
cool
you know
full house
we do do that
okay well this was an exception
she's in cincinnati right now yeah she's
already there yeah
well it's just a thought because it's
it's hard to sit there
i try to make it entertaining but you
know it's not that entertaining stuff
not always
so
well
appreciate all the hard work you guys
put in and that's a very long time yeah
ice cream tomorrow
that's right
actually actually no joke it was really
nice having some snacks back here
that's the
not for me