all right
oh i need you i need you here
yeah i can't start without you
karen are you ready
oh yeah okay oh oh my god ready ready to
rumble
all right
i'd like to call to order the
august 2022 meeting of the bexley board
of zoning and planning
and uh ask
the
clerk ms rose if she would call the role
of the members
mr turner here mr marsh here mr levine
here mr schick
and our newest member mr king here and
chairman
i'm here also
now
we have a new member aboard and the
mayor is here and i think uh would like
to make some remarks to the board
mr mayor i just want to welcome patrick
king as an alternate to the board of
zoning planning and introduce them to
you and uh patrick ladies want to give a
quick background sure um that just came
i
live on park hill drive right over here
and i work
in public finance all around the state
of ohio so
excited to be here public finance when
none of us know what what that means but
that's probably good
[Laughter]
riveting stuff thank you as always for
your service
thank you patrick thank you for being
here tonight as well
thank you mr mayor
as i say that can i just remind all
board members to make sure you put your
microphone on when you're speaking if
you have it turned off you're welcome to
keep it on the whole time but
um we've been forgetting that and it's
important to hear on the tapes okay
all right
since i do a lot of talking i just keep
mine on i just can't whisper underneath
my breath what i'm thinking sometimes
all right the um
agenda calls for a moment of public
comment or a
minute or
an hour perhaps a public comment but if
anybody is here that wishes to comment
on the operation the the
goings-on and the doings
of the board of zoning and planning
now is your opportunity to make that
comment but you cannot comment
about a particular case
that will come as we call each case so
if you're here
to discuss pro or con
a case this is not the time but if
you're here to discuss things in general
raise your hand and give you an
opportunity to talk
i see no indication of such
so we'll move on to the approval of the
minutes of the july meeting
uh has uh everybody had a chance they
were they were sent out this afternoon i
saw them
has everybody had a chance to review
them
does anybody have any uh additions or
corrections
deletions
amendments
or any other
mode of alteration
if not i would uh entertain a motion to
approve the minutes of the july 2022
meeting
so moved
is there a second
second turner thank you all in favor say
aye
all opposed
the minutes of the july meeting are
approved
we have
some
rules and regulations that have come
into play here recently is that not true
with regard to
how we're going to handle
uh
no votes
is that one thing
um
and i think it
bears some public comment that
that when there's a no vote we're going
to
ask for the
board member who voted no or could be
more than one person vote no
to explain their reasons briefly that we
don't need a
diatribe but we need to hear some some
of the basis for the
uh
denial of the request or the application
or
if in certain situations we might just
have a brief discussion
uh
so that the uh reasons for the board's
action in certain cases uh becomes
public and
part of the reason for this is that
when the decision is
appealed which doesn't happen very
frequently but when there is an appeal
it goes to city council
and or then it could go to the court of
common pleas possibly go to the court of
appeals or the supreme court even that
there is a
underlying basis for which
a reviewing body
can at least understand the logic and
reasoning
of the
votes
and have some basis for either reversing
or affirming
uh the decision of the board of zoning
and planning
are there any other items that we should
bring up um
i don't know that it'll be an issue
tonight but
we should we do have um in our new rules
and regs that we passed at time limits
on in case we have a case that there are
many speakers many speakers it's the
discretion of the
chair to put a time limit on okay
and i think we've had some evenings
where i wish i would have had that
discretion but
generally speaking we're we're looking
at three minutes uh as being um
an adequate uh time frame that would be
not for the presenter and and uh
not for any member of the board that
wants to ask questions but rather for a
person who's here to a citizen who's
here who has standing that wishes to
iterate their position on a matter pro
or con
thank you karen
all right if there's nothing else that
we need to address preliminarily i'd
like to go to the
first case before the
board this evening and that is
application number bzap-22-21
involving 2844 elm
the applicant and the owner of the
property's heather moorman
and uh
ms moorman is uh seeking a variance from
the bexley city code section 1252
i'm gonna have to
think about that one 315g one looks like
which limits accessory structures
to the rear yard and from bexley city
code section 1464.02
which requires a pool or spa to be
five feet further back from all other
building restriction lines
to allow a hot tub to in in the side
yard and only five feet from the side
lock line
is ms mormon here
all right
please come up and um
if you would raise your right hand and
be sworn
do you please state your name jeff
morman jeff morman do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you'll give
this evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do
thank you very much
all right
ms rose bring us up to date on this case
that's been here before
this has been tabled several times the
applicant have not been in attendance so
we're happy to see that we have an
applicant this evening okay
this is a corner lot it's located at the
northwest corner of elm and gould and
of course we're seeking a variance to
allow a hot tub in the side yard as
accessory structures are only permitted
in the rear yard
a hot tub also requires a five foot
setback in addition to the standard
three foot setback for accessory
structures
they're proposing to locate this hot tub
five feet from the
west side property line
and it's although it's alongside the
house it's situated at the back
half it's also surrounded by a fence
screening it from the yard and from the
neighbors
there's also concern preventing access
for fire equipment when you have
accessory structures in a sag yard
although the fact that this is a corner
lot would eliminate that concern
okay
um
how about for urine not just really this
hasn't come before the architectural
board this is all captured i wouldn't
think it would i would also like to add
that in my staff reports i do include
all the criteria that they provide
within their applications regarding
variance questions
so that's you'll find in my staff report
i don't think it's necessary to actually
read through all of those or we'll be
here for a while
okay it's there but at least we have
them to read in advance so we
are prepared
all right mr mormon why don't you tell
us a little bit about why
you'd like uh to do things the way that
you're you're seeking to do them sure
thanks uh i appreciate your time and
attention this evening uh we're new to
bexley we just purchased this house
about a year ago and we're we're excited
the
that back area is is beautiful there's
uh the previous owners actually i think
two owners ago had done
a nice detailed patio and had put an
outdoor fireplace stone fireplace it was
gorgeous but this this area was um
was very underutilized it was just
basically filled with stone and a couple
shrubs
that
really didn't have any contributing
value there was really no use to that
space
being on a corner lot it was the most
private location and
as something that
my family really wanted we thought that
would be a great location for the hot
tub quite frankly we um
we installed it and went to get the
permit for the electric um
and realized at that point that when we
tried to pull the electrical permit that
we needed a zoning variant so this hot
tub is uh now sitting there and we have
to we'll be relocated if we don't get
the approval but we're hoping that
that's not the case here so it is um it
fits in well it it hides itself from
from the neighbors pretty well it's
screened by the by the fence and
our neighbors the west i believe
hopefully kathy they submitted the
support letter yes they did submit i i
was gonna ask if i
mentioned that they did provide a letter
in support of the request
so
um
no more preliminary comments from me the
neighbor on that side on that side
correct protected neighbor
okay
are there any uh questions uh
from members of the board or comments
before i ask uh whether there's anybody
in the audience that wishes to comment
any initial comments or questions
is there anyone in the audience that is
for or against this matter that has
standing that would like to
articulate their
thoughts i see no indication of such
um
so
i guess
are there any alternatives that are
inside line you know one of the things i
just wanted to say to you is what we've
got to be as a board a little bit
careful about is we set precedent
to some extent when we make these
decisions now every situation has got
different facts and it's not like the
supreme court in the united states makes
it even though i'm not sure what that
means anymore either so right
but
to to say hey there is a rule
why shouldn't we enforce the rule it's
important for us to kind of
hone in on that sure
uh we did look at alternatives so the
entire eastern half
borders gould has a separate front door
there
didn't feel like that was an appropriate
or private location honestly i feel like
that would be a much less desirable
location if the hot tub was facing gould
or elm um
and if we were to move it back i mean
that would be a possibility and where we
would have to relocate it between the
garage and
was that the northern uh part of the
house there but that would um remove
that beautiful stone patio and and
would kind of take away from what is
our pretty nice outdoor space that we
have there so yes and that would be the
other alternative but you know far less
desirable um this is right next to the
electrical panel so that the shut off
valve all the connections are are less
costly to have it here so there was some
economic reasons as well as just kind of
functionality reasons and then you know
the privacy and aesthetic view of
anything on the east was was really just
off the table for us so we felt like
that was the the most hidden in in
private location and the most economical
for
for this use
this ariel i've
included in my staff report that blue
dot represents the location of the hot
tub
right
you have a fence on the gold side
i'm sorry defense on the gold side yes
there is yeah is it uh
uh it's i think it's six feet but the
last but maybe 18 inches is kind of a
kind of a lattice view like you can see
through there on the gold on the gold
side yes yeah
yeah and there's a
it almost looks like a second front door
with a front porch on that side as well
that's actually where our mailbox is
located
kind of see it with the sidewalk there
it's almost it's if nobody could see it
except that neighbor
pretty much i think that's correct yes i
mean it really
there's even a little shrubs uh to the
south side of or right to the north
south of the the hot tub there would
really screen it anywhere from elm
really there's no other neighbor that we
could see that would actually have any
line of sight to it and uh mr and mrs
palmer they when they saw it and solid
wrestling when they could first jump in
so they were supportive and you know
that was by the letter but um
i see uh i'm pulling up apple maps here
i know this is not something that people
could see who are viewing at home um it
does look like you were talking about
some shrubs uh is the fence vine or is
there like are there yeah
it is yeah that's uh that's his fence
and so he's got beautiful vines that run
the entire
length of that whole part of the
karen do we want to show like the
auditor's website what it
can bring up
to the
center to the elm street side of the hot
tub
is that a fence that i'm looking at
on this drawing
uh on the elm street yeah
there would be a there's a fence to the
to the south of the
south that's the hot tub yeah so nor
north of elm obviously yes right there
which blocks the view from elm correct
correct
right that i know okay and is there also
offense to the west
uh no that's where actually a um covered
porch is on
excuse me to the yes i'm sorry to the
west yes between us and the neighbor
there is that correct yes that's right
and are those foot four foot high six
foot high i believe that's i think it's
six ish they're already up the fence yes
yeah it's i mean it looks like it's
probably been there 20 years or
something longer okay
and it's pulling up the
photo of the house it shows that yeah
you're not going to see this at home
because i'm not going to share the
screen i'm not going to switch the
screen share if you want me to
i'm not sure that photo is going to be
too helpful
there we go there's yeah that's the
that's the new fence that was installed
before we searched this is from google
that's correct yep
there you can see
all right
are there any other questions or
comments from members of the board
to the left of the house
that looks lower than what the fence is
now yeah i believe faye when they
installed that fence there on the right
they they extended it over there correct
so you have at least a 48
inch
yes
yeah it's yeah for sure which is what's
required for a problem kathy what is the
rationale for having special setback
rules for hot tubs
that's a very good question um it could
possibly be a noise factor um because if
it's the same for a pool which is flush
with the ground so you typically won't
see that but
whether it's the noise issue
and
side yard there you keep them clear for
fire protection
[Music]
issues
but the fact that this is
not the case
i'm not sure the only thing i can think
of is possibly noise
all right
kathy why don't you give us findings in
fact conclusions of law here if you
would
the findings the fact and decision of
the board for application number
bzap-22-21 for property located at 2844
elm
upon consideration of the application
proposed variants and evidence testimony
before it the board finds the applicant
has proven that criteria to grant
an area variance to mexico section 12
2611 c have been met in a three-foot
variance for bexie code section
146402 to allow a hot tub to be located
five feet from the
west side property line
and variants from mexico section 12 52.1
g
1 to allow a hot tub in the west side
yard
approved as submitted
all right thank you
are you okay with that
suggested wording i yeah that sounds
fine to us yes
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law
so moved there a second please second
thank you sir
um
kathy please call the roll if you would
mr turner yes
mr marsh yes
mr levine yes
mr shake yes
mr king yes
chairman b hall
i'll say just the
circumstances of this particular
situation are such that i'm also going
to vote yes but i think it's very fact
oriented for me uh that there's such a
small location that there's only one
party that is
really affected in any way by it and
that party has approved it so i just
wanted to state my reasons for voting
yes but the matter is approved in your
application is approved good luck with
your project there and welcome to bexley
appreciate it thank you very much have a
good evening
the next case on the docket is case
arb-22-42
involving 2774 to 2776 east main street
and the applicant and the owner
are edward corda cortis
cordorkovsky gorkovsky how'd i do
that i did well
not bad for an italian you know
the applicant is seeking architectural
review
and approval for artistic improvements
in the form of wall art on the east
facade of the building for the new k
gallery
sir if you'd come forward please
and if you don't mind being sworn in
please state your own name probably more
effectively than i did no you are clubs
edward karakovsky all right thank you
and edward do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give this
panel this evening will be the truth and
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do thank you very much
all right
kathy give us a little staff report if
you would
this is a
corner lot located at the northwest
corner of main street in gould road so
on cleaners occupies the first floor and
the second floor
which has an entryway off of the gold
side of the building was previously
occupied by progressive insurance and is
now okay gallery
mr kordakovsky who owns the gallery is a
fan of the artist kandinsky he would
like to display the works of kandinsky
in his k gallery and would like to also
display panels of artwork
each every other section of the wall
along gold road this application has
gone before the architecture review
board and they looked favorably on the
artistic improvement and had suggested
conditions for the opposite panels along
the east facade to be painted to match
the dark trim color the applicant has
since painted the panels
and uh
we can give him some feedback on that
and i'll defer to karen for any other
design comments
all right karen please we had a very
robust and great conversation at arb
they did
um enthusiastically recommend this for
approval to board zoning and planning we
did get off on some tangents about oh
what else could be displayed there and
partnering with capital students in
partnering with berkeley high school so
it was a very robust and interesting
discussion um but i think just to repeat
what kathy said the only condition that
the board requested is that the panels
in between be painted to match
her to
not necessarily match but to blend
better with the brick
or the trim in a dark color i did didn't
kathy you said they already did that
they did well i did it i'm sorry let me
well i was a little skeptical about this
whether or not you have permission i was
a little skeptical about this dark color
and i painted just to see how it's gonna
look like
and
i have to admit i was wrong it's
beautiful
and that was their suggestion i on my
full disclosure i didn't go past it
today
looks absolutely beautiful i took a
picture i'm trying to find it so i can
send it to you well the depiction here
is dark so it i mean i i get the idea of
it i think it frames the the paintings
well too
so while the arb this is in your purview
there was a lot of support for this okay
exciting way to energize that corner
okay
very interesting
tell us your perspective on this
well um
i've been back to the residence for 30
years and i've been collector for
world-class collector i would say for 20
years
i have a lot of original
paintings by the famous artists world
artists
i would like i mean it's been travel all
over the world like uh
german museum chicago museum columbus
museum of arts capital university
gallery
and i'm getting old i just decided to
stay
here you know not travel anymore
and i want to open the space uh where's
the community i mean basically to
say thank you to baxter and to
my uh
kids grow up here in berksley and i just
want to give something to the community
it's not going to be business business
because you can't make money on it right
plus
i don't want to sell the best things
i collected for many years so it's going
to be museum slash
maybe occasional sale it's not going to
be a retail establishment gotcha so
that's very interesting
very interesting
i didn't get a very good picture because
of course i was driving and i was
sitting here yeah i didn't want to drive
while taking a period they can all go
past it
yeah we'll go past it yeah i mean this
is a pretty good depiction here of it
now
actually i wasn't in bexley though i was
on the
east side of gold
so it's noticeable it works
before i open the questions is there
anybody in the audience that is for or
against this matter would like to
tell the board their position
i don't see any hands okay
so members of the board do you have any
questions or comments
about this
i mean i'm fairly familiar with
kandinsky i don't recall him doing any
uh sex scenes or or nudes you know that
i can recall him he might have done a
new no it's actually the sketchbook i
owned um
for on white two which is in paris so
this is the original sketchbook his uh
watercolors before he painted uh oil
uh-huh
interesting but it's not gonna be just
condensed i mean it's gonna be
different
i mean for the wall yes
and it's not a permanent it's like a
posters yes it's not a permanent thing
so it can be changed like committee said
i mean if we got bored with it we'll
replace it with chagall i don't know
do you have intention of changing this
uh
not for a couple years for sure because
it's very expensive
yeah right
are you
thinking about that bright morning
sunlight is going to hit the side of
that building would do any damage to
your posters for your drawings
probably not i mean not for several
years and that's that's fine it's going
to be printed uh notice enterprise gonna
print it out and they're gonna use like
is the latest super material which is
very good i guess
for this purpose
well i think this is one of the more
interesting cases we've ever had
sean what do you think i've got just two
quick questions one
um
is anybody approving the actual artwork
and if they are does if he decides to
change it does somebody have to come
back and
see it will he have to come again or is
it just that for you i think he could
share it with we talked about um we
talked about that issue at architecture
review board they kind of deferred it to
discussion here but the proposal was
that
it would come through staff and if staff
was uncomfortable with any subject
matter we
could bring it back before the board but
it didn't really sound like there was
going to be any kind of immediate change
no
actually i was not going to you
suggested to
to do some kind of a couple board
members that were excited about the idea
and kind of went off on their own
tangent
about partnering with capital art
students or bachelorette students and
um
but i think you all could stipulate that
any changes in the artwork go through
staff with staff has the ability to
um you know bring it back here if
there's discomfort okay and then i got
one other question and this is more
hopefully a helpful question
i believe that we had to approve the
progressive awning at one point when the
awning was put on the side of the
building and it looks in from your
artwork you're going to change the
awning no
no i'm not going to change the awning i
might change the text on the awning
or is that okay i mean if i i'm okay
approving it tonight if that's if we
need to approve something but i just in
the comments
in the code update they have allowed
staff to approve signage if they're in
conformance with the uh
main street guidelines and codes yeah
okay
i just wanted to save you a trip back
i wonder if there is a
traffic issue where people will be
looking at the artwork it's so it really
is
eye-catching and running to the back of
the car in front of them you know i just
wonder that's a possibility good
insurance
yeah hopefully they're sure right yeah
so there are lights there it's a traffic
light right
yeah yeah the longest light uh
i've spent years of my life there yeah
all right um
any other questions or comments
uh if not uh
kathy please give us finding the fact
conclusions of the law the findings of
fact and
decision of the board
the board finds after review of the
plans and consideration of the
application evidence and testimony given
and the recommendation of the
architect's review board
that the certificate of appropriateness
should be issued for 2774
through 2776 east main in substantial
conformance with the rendering and plans
submitted
with the condition that staff review new
artwork
is that acceptable language to you sure
very good
all right do i have a motion to
approve the findings in fact conclusions
of the law regarding the certificate of
appropriateness here so moved is there a
second please second turner thank you mr
turner
uh kathy please call the role
mr shane yes mr king yes
mr turner yes mr marsh yes mr levine yes
chairman
i vote yes too thank you congratulations
and uh good uh
good luck with this project it's a very
interesting project and you're all
welcome to come and and i said on behalf
of beckley we appreciate it very much i
think all right thank you very much
thank you
capitals
it was not one off it was uh it was i
think it was the same thing where we
said they would come they would come
back through staff yeah if they were
going to change them just to make sure
that it wasn't a nude yeah like there
was two a year
no
yeah right well they didn't want to tell
us the name of the
number they were going to unveil the new
name after they got rid of crusaders
and what was it do you know comments
comments
oh that was a quiz
capital comments no i didn't
i took a guess that night i tried to get
him to tell us but he wouldn't
they wouldn't succumb to mine
all right the next case
is uh
another arb case arb 22-46
and our case number be zap 22-38
involving 698 south cassingham
uh the applicant is daryl haas and the
owner of the property is the same daryl
and paula haas
and the applicants are seeking
architectural review and approval
and a certificate of appropriateness for
the 4a one story edition
at the rear of the house applicant is
also seeking a variance from bexley city
code section 1252.09
in the r6 zoning district which limits
lot coverage to 35 percent
and requires a six foot six inch side
yard setback
to allow the proposed addition to be
five feet from the north side of the
property line and to allow the lot
coverage to be 36 percent as opposed to
the allowable 35
the applicant is also seeking a variance
from beckley city code section
1252.15 a
which limits a detached garage to 18
feet in height to allow a detached
garage to be 20 feet in height in this
case
would the applicant or the applicant's
representative please come forward
mr haas
would you raise your right hand do you
swear or affirm the testimony you'll
give this evening be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do
thank you very much
kathy re refresh us on this one
i have to well there was a screen porch
there before is that correct there
currently is yes yes okay because i
think that's a very important fact
um this is a corner lot in the r6 zoning
district additional though it's proposed
at five feet from the north property
line it's replacing an existing screen
porch that is 34 inches from the
property line okay
that is important
uh the addition could be pushed towards
the street side of the property but
would encroach into the only functional
yard space the proposed garage as
originally submitted did not include a
dormer facing the house
if staff finds the size and shape of the
door and meets the criteria list under
under 1252.15 the only variance required
for the proposed garage would be a one
foot four inch
or maximum 2 feet
to the 18 foot height limit this would
allow the option of a 20 foot height
although 19 feet 4 inches is shown on
the latest plan that i've seen well he
has 20 as the max he said but i mean
so if we yeah 19 feet 4 inches but it's
20 backs if i think of it
yeah there's a two foot okay
there's also a lot of information in
this file regarding a offense however i
did not notice that when i sent out
notice to the neighbors
um i and i think he's got a lot going on
with this project it's beautiful but
we'd like to set the fence for the next
hearing so that i can work with the
applicant on
the appropriate fence height and such
because this is a property that kind of
sets up on a little bit of a hill so
they may not necessarily need what they
believe is necessary for what they're
trying to screen
okay
karen
um so this this project it's it's got a
lot of pieces and parts the part that
we're here for today is the variance for
the house part um in this picture you'll
see a dormer also proposed for
the garage but the applicant that's not
before you tonight i just want to
clarify that we i included everything
online so that you can understand the
context as well as the like kathy said
the fence is also going to have to be
voted on at your next meeting because we
didn't get to notice it um the
architecture review board recommended
this
um
to for approval from all of you for the
house portion of this and the lot
extended lock coverage but i think it's
just one percent
um
the plans for this
you all hopefully have scrolled through
the drawings are are beautiful
and the um applicant though he can speak
to it himself
um received pretty strong support
because their intention is to
stay with the are they letting glass
windows yes leaded glass windows i mean
all original materials are going to be
kept this house is beautiful
and um as an aside which has no bearing
on this
that the neighbor next door who did come
before us a couple months ago and is
currently doing an addition i don't know
if it's done it or not that there is not
a better neighbor experience that i've
ever witnessed here in 23 years there he
is completely helping him do this
edition
and the um applicant is doing it
just first class with all the original
materials
i can answer any questions but the
architecture viewport gave him a a very
positive
recommendation and would like for them
to come back it was remanded back yes to
the architectural review board just for
final details okay
mr haas tell us a little bit about
why you're doing things the way you are
and why you would like to have of the
variances that have been noted
well my wife and i have
lived in that house for 46 years now
and um we decided that uh
after some health issues the last few
years were both have now retired
we're trying to decide where do we want
to stay at our retirement we love the
neighborhood we love the neighbors we
like bexley this is where we want to
stay it's our preference
but our
because of the health problems we've had
in the past we realized that
having only one full bathroom upstairs
and our bedroom upstairs
we couldn't guarantee you know staying
there and we didn't want to start being
in our 80s or something have to start
thinking about where we're going to move
because at that point it's probably
an assisted living facility or something
and that's not what our goal is right
so we had to put enough living space on
the first floor
basically for
the bedroom bathroom
and that's uh what we're adding on
uh originally we hoped to put a little
family room space but there wasn't
enough room um
so it's really the minimum
that we can do as far as living space
and stay there
the other issue
on the garage the reason for expanding
the garage i had some pictures which i
don't think are up there but
we've this garage is not only old a
little bit dilapidated i don't think
there's a good picture of it there i
just had one i took
okay there you go yeah uh i with my with
my cars we both have two we both have
suvs
we can barely fit them in the garage
um
because of uh there's often very limited
parking available on the street and
that's true because it's actually a lot
of people in the area don't use their
garages and
uh
so our option would have been
like i say it's we
i took those pictures just to show some
of the struggle of getting in and out of
that uh garage it's a it's a chore
and the big the biggest chore is getting
in and out of our cars and the older we
get we both got some arthritis it's it's
really hard to get in and out of a car
when both cars are in the garage
so uh we just want to expand the size so
that uh to allow for that i also want to
put a
uh now that i'm retired a work bench in
there so i have some room to do some you
know projects and things i like to work
on and
and
all right so that's the reason uh that
we need the
expansion really i know the house it's a
great great looking house for the street
too thank you um
is there anybody in the audience that is
for or against this application please
sir if you would come forward mr haas if
you don't mind giving him the microphone
because
everything is recorded
sir if you would state your name please
michael wang
michael do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give will be
the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do thank you very much
tell us your perspective where do you
live i live immediately to the north
some property that would be infringed
upon only would be ours
we've lived there for 22 years they are
wonderful people wonderful neighbors
it's a wonderful home so we are
wholeheartedly in favor of the project
no objections at all we'd love to see it
happen we'd love to see them stay for
another 46 years so beautiful you know
that's what we're going for all right
well that's nice for you to come tonight
because it helps us to hear the opinions
of neighbors too very much so so thank
you for your time tonight
all right members of the
board any questions or comments
that's usually a pretty good sign okay
good uh
kathy would you please uh
give us findings of fact conclusions law
with regard to the
uh portion of this project that is
before us this evening the findings of
fact and decision of the board for
application number bzap dash
22-38 which was formally submitted as
arb-22-46
discovered it needed a variance
or property located at 698 south
cassingham
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence testimony
before it the board finds the applicant
has proven that the criteria to grant an
area variance in mexico section 12 26 11
c i have been met
and a
variance from mexico section 1252.09
or six zoning to allow a one-story
addition to be five feet from the north
property line which is an improvement
from the existing structure
conditions
and to allow lot coverage to be at 36
percent
so that would be a one percent variance
and also variance from mexico section
1252.15 a to allow a detached garage to
be a maximum of 20 feet in height
the board further finds a certificate of
appropriateness to return to the
architecture review board for final
determination of all improvements
modifications to be in compliance with a
certificate of appropriateness
by the arb and approved by the arb
that i think that would only
be the case if you decided to put the
dormers on it that that remained back
was based on is that why the dormers to
the garage so
i think we should just um
he also had a balcony did the balcony go
away
no it's on another photo
isn't that the same elevation
yes but he has two options there's the
one
oh so is there a preference on the
options or
the arb didn't care either way they
actually liked it
so are you suggesting that
we have too many conditions in in the
rendition that we're just suggesting
that
i believe that the architecture review
board wanted it remanded back if the
dormer
that was added to the garage does not
meet code
so you can still have dormers that meet
code that i could just approve added on
to this
if if you you might want to stipulate
that since there's a height variance
also
well that's that'll be granted with this
but if the other one meets code then
it's just a matter of design and we
could sign off on that we can sign off
on it
the issue
i'm not saying too much time but there
the dormers were only showed from the um
the side elevation and the board um the
architecture view board wanted to see
all elevations for the dormers but if
the dormers are in fact going to meet
code that's not necessary anyway so i
don't think we need to remain this back
because
um there was no problem at all with any
of the architecture of the home
okay
are you familiar with the code as it
respects dormers
i don't exactly know it but i i sent a
note to my designer and told him that
our goal is and i think he has access to
the code and sure
the goal is to
do a dormer that will meet code
okay
i i i guess we probably don't need a
rematch i mean if he decides to build a
dormer that's twice that size he's gonna
have to come back to you anyway to get a
permit for it so
so i think we're okay without a remand
so so then the this board will issue the
certificate of appropriateness as
submitted as submitted right now it's
way that would be amended wording is
that amended wording acceptable to you
mr ross okay thank you
uh
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law
so moved
is there a second please
second second mr chick chick
um
kathy i think we can call the role mr
marsh yes mr levine yes
mr king yes mr turner yes
mr shake yes
chairman b hall once again i just wanted
to state i think the one percent delta
on coverage and the fact that the
screening porch is already there really
uh are are facts that make this
uh
a a
good request and i also vote yes
aside from that it's a beautiful project
and uh i'm glad you're gonna stay in
bexley thank you
thank you
thank you all
the next case is case
bzap-22-33 involving 70 south parkview
the applicant is delco construction
services llc and the
owner is tanya agresti
the applicant is seeking a variance from
beckley city code section 12
64.03 b
which indicates that no fence wall or
combination thereof shall exceed 48
inches in height in the side yard
setback areas
as it faces a public or private street
to allow a proposed 55 inch high
aluminum fence along the south end of
this lot along powell avenue is the
owner or applicant here
there's a lot of people here but not the
owner or applicant
any word from the owner applicant from
anybody we're going to text the
applicant
can we we can move them to last
before we table thank you
well
we could
except since i can't sit for the next
case
i'm probably not going to be here
yeah less members but you can still
handle that case show
okay
this is matt dillendorf yeah
right
is there anybody here
to speak for or against 70 south
parkview case
okay i don't see any hands so
everybody's here for the other case
apparently all right
then
i would suggest that we either
wait till the end of the docket and then
at that point in time we can decide
whether to table it or not and in the
meantime we'll just skip to the next
case
for which
uh i have to recuse myself
and
mr marsh is going to take over the
chairmanship and i
and i'm and i'm going to go home because
last time i did this it took a long time
good night
um all right the next item up is be
zapped 22 dash
oh sure let's take a go ahead and take a
break
three minute break
great
we're back in session
um
next applicant is
bezap
22-34 216 south columbia the applicant
is nate sampson the owner is michael
glimscher
um
kathy if you want to go and give us the
staff review on this
thanks
this property owned by michael glenn
sure consists of two parcels that are
zoned r3
uh parcel number
o20
2022 is the north lot
parcel number
02001993 is the south lot and i'll refer
to those as northern staff
back in 2014 the owner filed a variance
application number 14056 and received a
variance approval to allow an accessory
structural pool house and swimming pool
to be constructed at the rear east end
of the north lot with no principal
structure on the north lot
and will serve as an accessory structure
to the principal structure on the
adjoining parcel to the
located on the south lot
the variance was granted subject to the
condition that the adjoining tax parcel
2022 and
1993 both north and south lots shall be
treated and remain as single undivided
parcels and neither parcel should all be
separately conveyed or otherwise
transferred i.e can stay two parcels but
will be treated as one
so the owner has filed an application
number bzap dash 2234
today or that's before this board
to request the previous variants that
required the parcels to be combined
granted by council who had jurisdiction
of variances at that time
that it be amended to allow parcels to
be separated and parcels to be split
into slightly new configurations if the
lots are reconfigured each lot would
meet the minimum lot size requirement
for the r3 zoning district and the new
principal structure could then be built
on the north lot
by providing a principal structure on
the north lot there is no longer need to
prohibit the lots from being separate
however the construction of an approved
principal structure would be a condition
of the lot split if the board approves
an amendment to the previous variants
the architecture review board
approved a certificate of
appropriateness to allow a principal
structure on the north lot with the
following conditions one the application
is subject to the lot split and decision
of the board of zoning and planning for
the subject property
first floor elevation to be 24 inches
from grade
wing wall to be added on the east end of
the screen to to screen a generator
existing grade to be provided and
maintained final design to be reviewed
and approved by the city's design
consultant and landscape plan to be
reviewed by the tree and public garden
commission
the fact that there is a new home on the
proposed north lot would alleviate the
need for the parcels to remain undivided
because there would be a principal
structure on the north lot and the pole
houses and swimming pool will remain as
part of the north lot and accessory to
the new principal structure
however the reconfiguration of the lots
will create the need for a variance for
the existing pool house and swimming
pool which will were built based upon a
larger combined parcel
not the similar separate parcel
a variance for the existing driveway is
also required as well as consideration
sorry
the applicant is seeking a variance from
mexico section
1252.15 which limits accessory
structures or uses to 40 of the lot
width to alex to allow the existing pool
house which is 76 feet wide to occupy
occupy 55.5
of the proposed new lot width
136.86 feet wide
and to permit the existing in-ground
swimming pool which is 61 feet wide to
occupy 44.6 percent of a lot width due
to the lot split and changes
in the code that since that date the
accessory structures were built
the applicant is also seeking a variance
from mexico section 12 62.01 e access
drives shall not be less than eight feet
and no larger than twelve and a half
feet in width to permit the existing
access drive to be no larger than 16
feet in width the applicant is also
proposing that the existing driveway
remain on the north lot and become a
shared drive between the north and south
lot with a single curb cut on south
columbia avenue in an effort to maintain
green space an easement should be
required if the driveway is shared but
located
on one lot
the owner proposes the existing 16 foot
wide drive will be split into two
separate driveways beyond the front
setback of the principal structure code
does not prohibit shared driveways but a
shared driveway easement that is
approved by and filed with the city
should be required as a condition of any
shared driveway approach
there was discussion about the shared
driveway on the august 11th
architectural review board meeting being
the proposed your drive is located on
the north lot there should be
consideration
that a separate drive for each lot
be submitted
staff would recommend a condition of
approval that the
applicant provide an alternate plan for
two individual driveways as a future
option that would function with the
existing proposed principal structures
in accordance with mexico section 126201
e the minimum width required for a
driveway is eight feet if the lot line
was centered on the existing driveway it
could technically create an eight foot
drive on each slot
but that's not necessarily what the
applicant is proposing then i'll defer
to catherine if she has anything further
to add i thought i would just talk to
the board a little bit because this is a
little bit unusual compared to what you
have
before you on a regular basis um so i
just thought i would go over some of the
standards and parameters that are before
you
so a couple of things one is you have a
various amendment you've had those
before this is one where it's been the
way that we've applied the code is
it used to be under the old code that
the city council did all variants
basically most of them like this um
this this variance is now within your
jurisdiction not the city council's
jurisdiction and the reason is because
if with a
with a last split um which i'm going to
talk about that in a minute but with a
lot slid if each
individual line after the split means
standards of the zoning district in
which it is located then this board has
jurisdiction so in this case it's our
three zone the north lot and the south
will independently meet the development
standards that are that are required for
lots of that district because that's
true you have jurisdictional display if
either one of those lots didn't be code
it would be city council jurisdiction
that's where we'd be so i know sometimes
you hear these and sometimes you don't
it's not a regular occurrence for either
of you but it's here because it does
if it is split
um
and secondly there's a little bit
different process on what you consider
depending on how it is split in this
case there was a condition that a lot
seen they were not required by the
conditioning post under the previous
syrians to be
technically combined at the auditor's
office so they did not become a single
parcel
um that would prohibit that would
require a
specific split
approval to go back
so they can go back with at the
auditor's office and here to the way
they were before they were treated as
combined
without any kind of new legal
description or new anything uh or any
auditor's approval or approval account
so you could just
you know basically disentangle them and
they remain because they are in their
native state now
um i think part of that was because
there would have been you know
it's not a variance to have it was a
variance because it was the excessive
structure the accessory structure on an
adjacent plot and on your code now we
treat those as one thing you could not
do that
so because if they stay in their native
state they just go back and that's all
there is to it you remember their answer
in this case there was some distinction
and i'm sure the applicant is going to
review this that there was some
consideration that they might
move
actually subdivide a lot without a flat
it's called but they would actually
adjust the lock lines slightly i think
three or three they'll go over that
would do to make the south lot a little
bit wider and the north lot a little bit
narrower um really just sort of to
accommodate existing conditions and get
a little bit more space
if they do that the steam's a little bit
different there's a provision in the
subdivision code that does um that does
allow that it's technically not a
subdivision because it's called a lot
line adjustment
but you have the jurisdiction to do that
as well so if you choose to do that
there's there's a standards that i think
calculate out the staff report they have
to provide you with um
the uh
approved description that the county
auditor or the county tax mapper
so that you could allow that to happen
if you choose to allow it to happen
um that's fine there's it's not it's not
a heavy burden or standard to me because
gold squads do need code and it is a lot
like adjustment so that's not something
you normally deal with but it's a little
bit different because it's a little
very slightly different the way you
consider it if you're going to actually
reconfigure those slots or not but the
standards are not hard to be able to do
that since they individually mean code
um
if there is
you what you would not have jurisdiction
over lot size and you do not have
jurisdictional reviews variances i think
there are i
there if there is any experiences
associated with this property that is
strictly city council it has nothing to
do with what you're considering you're
really just considering the development
standards of these slots and the couple
of particular variances that you have
and whether or not there should be a an
amendment to previous variance that was
granted that required as long as there's
an excessive structure next door that we
treat this as a single one
so if you have any questions about that
i'm happy to answer it oh and i do want
to mention on the shared driveway
it's an existing condition of six feet
wide
um but
if you are going to if a lot gets split
the driveway's on the adjacent property
um then as i can we would we would
suggest strongly that as a condition of
the approval that the applicant is
required to come to the city with to
show us a driveway easement that is
recorded so that you don't end up with
one house that that somehow doesn't have
an easement this lot they also showed
that they could actually
meet standards and put driveways in it
would be
just as wide and
you know
if if they did that they could each slot
could support its own driveway so it's
expression of you know
maybe saving some green space and having
a different entrance and a simple
growing covers too
but that is another thing if if we do
have a shared drive where that driveway
is straddling lot lines are on a
different line we want to see an
appeasement to make sure that somebody's
not divested or there's a problem with
that into the future got it got it if
you you know if you could can you just
tell me
the parcel map that shows the otters map
yeah if you could just go
that yeah so just so i think we're to
set the stage here so
these this is these are the parcels
currently
and
and the the pool house and the pool was
built
and
in order to do that they had to get
those variances because it was on a
separate lot from the house that's right
and then
the request is
um
that they would build a someone's going
to build a house on the northern lot
and then is the pool house and the pool
going with that is going to go with that
house and then we'll just have the
existing house and garage
on the lot that it's on
gotcha
gotcha okay i just wanted to because
there were a lot of drawings in there
and it wasn't when i looked at it wasn't
completely clear on what what the
parcels were well and i thought it was
confusing also as to
like they said new lot line i thought it
was confusing because there were so many
lines on the drawings that they had
um and you'll see what they did with the
um that's why they included this parcel
so you can see so we're basically the
three feeds that is
north of the south parcel you took this
out the rear south parcel line and you
extended it up free feet and then took a
90 degree angle and ran it all the way
down to
columbia that's where
gotcha you take that and you shipped it
out
a little bit
and like i said um they can talk about
that but that's that that's sort of it
went into sort of however they sort of
understand what we're talking about
because i agree i thought the drawings
were a little bit confusing they did and
at the time i think kathy dinner stopped
recording forgotten
we had not received the approved
descriptions from the county engineer
but we have since received those so it's
it's
you know
it's your discretion whether you allow
it or not but in terms of
do they need code and do they meet the
standards for conveyance that that could
happen they do on all fronts they need
all of those things
um
but again if that's done and the
driveway stays where it is
on the northern light then we wouldn't
want to see it in the center so we were
sure that they were invested in the
right to continue to use that driveway
and somebody would get cut
thank you does before we take
testimonies anybody on the board have
any questions for miss cunningham or ms
rose
and
they're moving it north and the reason
for that is the existing structure was
built with a
nine feet from that property line
by moving that property line further
north
nate's trying to achieve the minimum
setback for the side yard for the
principal structure
okay
um
okay uh mr sampson if you could be sworn
in uh do you agree that testimony
tonight will be truthful
yes i do perfect um we you've got five
minutes and then we're gonna do three
minutes for anyone that wishes to speak
but go ahead you've got and then of
course you'll have time to respond to
any any questions from the board
sure so for this project which uh we
went to the arb a couple of weeks ago um
recommending you know unanimously
approval for this project to the bz hey
i think one thing i want to just step
back because this slot split
does uh
would require us to legitimize the pool
and pool house with on the on the
proposed lot um
in our 19 or 2014 application the area
calcs that we did were for a separate
lot for the pool house and the pool
which uh just should be noted so if we
return that to the same width although
it's longer than is permitted today
under code at the time it matched up
with that lot
and we did that specifically
correct
yes
area wise it remains you know within
bounce we worked very hard in this
application to make sure that we were uh
not asking for any variances uh beyond
what may be a technical variance just
from the code changes that have happened
from then to now so
in this you know both lots are
r3
legal lots they exceed the minimum lot
of you know lot size requirements and
dimensions uh
by quite a bit and then with the new
proposed structure that basically um
fulfills what was uh the request of the
time in 19 2014 uh requested the owner
to keep the lot separate
although
the conveyance issue came up keep the
lot separate so that a future family
member or future owner could construct
another single-family house on that lot
and that's in our exhibit a from that
application
um
so
with the you know proposed house
proposed setbacks
dealing with the shared driveway which
is allowed uh in r3 so the only zoning
variants or zoning questions that are
coming up today are you know uh
explaining the lot split and so everyone
understands that and if they have any
questions for it um the driveway is
would be shared which is allowed uh
we've included also which we could look
at perhaps later um
the south lot as it was divided
previously had a driveway in that nine
foot swath uh so certainly enough room
at the nine foot uh side yard or 12 foot
side yard if these lots were were ever
conveyed and they had except you know
just other owners who wanted their own
driveway
absolutely you know fits within those uh
dimensional uh spaces um
the
with the changing code for accessory
structures we're just dealing with an
existing pool house trying to return
those two lots to what was you know as
close to what is planted our three-foot
adjustment to that lot line was simply
to minimize variances and getting a
uh side there set back at 12 feet which
is you know current with code um i think
that it's the discretion of the board as
well
if you felt that returning it to the
historical lot line was more appropriate
and it certainly can fit a driveway in
that space we would be open to
considering that as well
any
questions about that great thank you
um
anyone have any questions at this point
okay
uh do we have anyone here in the
audience that wishes to speak to this
application
uh if is there anyone else if you wanna
we're gonna swear people in so if
anybody wants to speak you need to be
sworn in
can one person speak for all neighbors
you state your name and address erica
mcintyre 172 south columbia avenue and
do you swear that your testimony will be
truthful yes thank you
thank you
um i have i'm the neighbor to the north
and then we have some other neighbors to
the south to the west and east here so
when i read in 2014 when this was
approved for michael glemshow to put the
pool and the pool house in when it said
it should be treated and remain as a
single undivided parcel and neither
parcel shall be separately conveyed or
otherwise transferred
i don't understand how it can then be
amended now
the reason it couldn't be conveyed at
the time is because the pull and pull
house were accessory structures to the
principal structure on the other lot
but the fact that they're proposing to
build a house on the
north lot that pool and pool house will
now become accessory structures to that
principle structure making it legit
but subject to a lot split
but so the pool and the pool house were
designed in such a way to go with the
property on the south the pool equipment
is next to the garage on the property in
the south it was designed they were
accessories to it yeah so as you saw one
as as one lot and that's what the board
of zoning appeals said is that it would
be treated as one law
right and we didn't want
we didn't want to allow them to sell
that lot with just accessory structures
on it
because then it wouldn't be code right
at this time they are accessories to the
existing house on the south lot they're
they're looked at as one lot but this
lot split is contingent upon a principal
structure being constructed on the other
lot to make both of these lots legit
i guess i would say in 2014 when this
came
before the board of zoning appeals
i as the neighbor would have appealed it
if they had not said that it would
remain a single law and be treated as a
single law that was what was decided
there and it was not clear to me nor
anyone
it wasn't clear that that meant oh no
you can
it can be separated whenever we want if
we build something there
i
maybe i
don't understand how this works
well i mean i think it i think it was a
this is unique situation that you have
two lots and you had a accessory
structure being built on an adjacent lot
and so
there's there's you know we see this a
number of times when there's houses
particularly houses that are on
multiple lots you have uh side yards you
have things that come into play that you
wouldn't on a on just a single lot and i
think that's why you know that's why it
was handled that way at the time
so when it said it said that it should
be
separately conveyed it cannot be divided
but
it cannot be defined that was probably
the only option they had as opposed to
requiring them to merge them into one
parcel
they could remain two separate parcels
but couldn't be sold
as a separate lot
because of the fact that the accessory
structures were on one lot
but they were accessory to the house on
the other lot so they had to remain that
way
at the time
at the time which was what was decided
that they would not be separated and
that's what michael glemser wanted then
and now he wants to separate them right
but but by to build a compound
for three different houses i
okay
it it doesn't seem right to me it
doesn't seem right to the neighbors
because in 2014 when this was proposed
it was one lot
so
i think everyone can see what i'm saying
i think what
and i could be wrong but but the way i
understand it is
they wanted to put an accessory
structure on the adjacent lot you can't
put an accessory structure on there
without a house being on there so the
only way they could do that is they put
that there and then said they they
wouldn't divide the lot off so that that
had its own lie
and the reason so the reason that that
was in there was basically because at
the time there was no house in the lot
it was just the accessory structure that
was on the lot
so that was the probably the reasoning
behind why they did it then
um
that would be my guess i'm not saying uh
dividing it or not dividing it back is
is
the right way to do it yet but
my understanding is probably that's why
they did it at the time
was because you couldn't have a single
lot with an accessory structure on it
without having permission from the city
i think if i had known that in 2014 i
should have protested the building of
that pool and pool house it was a tennis
court that was attached to my property
at 172 south columbia when mr glimshore
bought that property he
he took down the tennis court because he
said he was going to have a pool and a
pool house we also have a pool so we
would not need a pool and a pool house
but it was my understanding that he
would it would not be sold and it would
never be sold to be have a house built
on it
so
with this language it is confusing to me
um secondly i would just say the
property line is proposed
current so currently he can't and that's
why he's here now is he's asking
to
more or less amend what the ruling was
in 2014. is that am i speaking out of
turn or is that no he's changing their
conditions yeah so he's changing the
conditions so when
in a residential neighborhood you could
not have a residential lot and just
building one you couldn't do that
if it's a different lock in your house
that's a freestanding lot in in
backsleeve you couldn't just build a
pool on a lot and have no house
associated with it okay
and so what he's changing what's
proposed is a change of the conditions
where you're putting a house on it and
the pool will go with the house that's
on it which is a permitting condition
investment
the reason that they
get i think what mr connor was
explaining is
is because they wanted to put a pull
on a lot that was different than the lot
where their house was because they never
yeah absolutely next door
but um the the way i read that condition
but you know i have to perform because
i'm an attorney but when i leave that
condition they didn't force them to
combine the laws we're having the same
owner they allow them to be separately
stand as separate lots with separate
owners they just prohibited them from
being split and sold
so that they would create a condition
with just a pool on
because they couldn't do that they
prohibited them from doing that
okay
i
i hear what you're saying i appreciate
the explanation um
i think it should still save one parcel
and
per
the 2014 decision um the property line
split is proposed puts the property to
the south at a disadvantage because
there is no opportunity to put a
driveway in i think i heard nate say
that you can put a driveway in
maybe there used to be a driveway there
but it does seem like no one likes a
shared driveway and for the future in
bexley to have a shared driveway on
south columbia where there is no shared
driveway on south columbia
it doesn't seem right to me
um
i don't have a shared driveway
thankfully and i hope to never buy a
house that has a shared driveway
that's all i have to say thank you thank
you
any other uh board discussion or
comments
i have a question was there ever a house
on this property
that we know of not that there was a
house demolished to build uh the house
that's there now
no was there no no no no oh on the
northbound nose
okay yeah that's the the primary
structure of the center was built in
1931
um and unfortunately or fortunately i
was at the hearing in 2014 when we
proposed this pool house and uh
i won't get exactly right but the um i
think the ruling was the variance was
for uh allowing an accessory structure
without a primary structure on that
separate lot and so they roped and
pulled them together so they couldn't be
conveyed independently of one another uh
simply so somebody couldn't buy a rule
right at that point is business
yeah exactly
exactly
um i think
also
just from the arb hearing um
we
you know understanding the sensitivity
of this as well
agreed uh to
add screening to the mechanical systems
that are behind the house which is not
required by code uh only on the side
yard um and since then we have decided
to not locate the pool equipment behind
the garage
or relocate it behind the garage which
was another question that came up at the
arb
thank you
and
miss cunningham could they
could they build a house
on that lot
today without getting anything from us
uh other than the
if they weren't gonna if they didn't
intend to ever
if they just were gonna keep it as two
two lots legally connected
and
somebody built two houses yeah yeah i
mean
so couldn't technically they just build
a second house on that second lot
still be treated as why well if you
treat it as one for development purposes
you couldn't put two houses
no single family two primary structures
but are they listed as
are they listed as i mean i think the
link was only that they you couldn't
sell one without the other it doesn't
i mean i don't that's an interesting
question that that is true at franklin
county these are two separate deeds yeah
um they're just linked together for uh
transference purposes
yeah
i don't know
if that's a that's a sticky wicket
because you would not just like you
can't have an accessory structure on an
adjacent lock you can't have two primary
structures on a single line either
not in the single-family district
structures yeah well because on the
south law that's what they're planning
the house that's there today is one
primary structure and they're planning
on adding on to the carriage house to
make it a second second primary
structure not considered
prime investigative if you have
something if you have somebody
permanently living in that respective
different questions
it's not a primary structure so so
you're gonna have two two two permanent
that's not mentioned for this network
yeah but it's not considered under
instruction
okay any other uh board questions or
comments about the answer
are you going to give us an opinion
on
on well they they do
it doesn't necessarily prohibit it but
the language did say that it was
subject to the condition that and this
is kathy's done so i'd have to look at
the variance to be sure she says it's
exactly where it shall be treated and
remain a single undivided personal and
neither parcel shall be separated from
or otherwise transfer that is it can
stay two parcels but it will be treated
as one
so if you do that then you couldn't
build a house without removing the
variants because it's going to treat
both parcels as one
yeah i think the city of bexley uh with
that accessory structure the way to
legitimize that proposal
was to
think of it as two lots for conveyance
and for
um
just meeting the standards that were in
place at the time
um
so
this i don't know if the city would have
to
uh
relieve that condition for it to be
to i mean i want to find the easiest way
to do this believe me so i think you
know in our approach we
since we are proposing a single family
residence on the north lot
um you know
architecturally approved by arb that
then creates the condition that
you are no longer in this odd gray space
where you have an accessory structure
only on one lot right
the way that it appears to be structured
was the intent that if this happened you
could be somebody i mean they because
they allowed separate owners normally we
would really
you know part of the law would be
combined if they kept it in that
state that it would allow it to separate
out if the condition went away gotcha
okay any other any other questions or
discussion by the board
do we have any other audience comments
is there any anyone else in our audience
wish to speak
you could come up and be sworn in please
my name's larry rubin i live at 140
south columbia avenue
um
do you agree that your testimony will be
truthful
yes i do thank you go ahead
i'm just ready three minutes
thanks i'm usually on the other side
here
um
asking for something in development in
bexley
um i just want to say that um
in erica's case
uh it's a little emotional michael's uh
requests are kind of a bait and switch
now for the mcintyres
i get that i'm a neighbor too and i
understand it and i understand her
investment
everybody's investment
i welcome new neighbors i understand
that it's it's probably very legal to
get this done and build this house it's
fine
i am not a proponent of shared driveways
in bexley i i know a lot of those cases
and they've
they just are not good in this case
i understand what i'm hearing is that at
a later date if we have a different
family not related to
uh the party living there it could be
change and there could be a curb cut
and and another driveway extended i
guess
is is my question just want to make sure
i understand that
for the future problems that could occur
but
other than that i always welcome new
neighbors um but i do understand erica's
flight their family and it's uh it's
just been a little difficult for them
thanks thank you
anyone else in the audience wish to
speak to this matter
if you come up be sworn in please
gilly zoe fan uh and what's your address
209 south columbia and do you swear your
testimony will be truthful i do go ahead
you have three minutes um i echo i mean
obviously it sounds like they make some
changes that will affect and help eric
on the nor on the north side however i
think the shared driveway is the biggest
concern here
yes the family members are early today
so the shared driveway could work for
them but if somebody was to move out of
there i think this really hurts all of
our community on columbia because if
there's an event going on hosting
friends nobody wants to have a shared
driveway who's going to be able to park
there which friends i get you can have
an easement
drawn up who's going to maintain it
that's always fine
but i know a lot of friends that even
have them on different streets they
fight over who's going to maintain it in
the wintertime snowplowing it to the
summertime to blacktop repairs it's
never something that anybody wants to
have a shared driveway i don't think on
the street with the price point of the
houses that we have that's something
that anybody in the future wants to have
i see all the time events hosted catered
at this house daily just last week or
she was filled with cars as we know and
if you had two different owners this is
going to be a nightmare with the shared
driveway so i think
gain ahead of it today
the house is beautiful it fits in that's
not i think what's up for question i
think the shared driveway should never
be allowed here
how is the shared driveway an issue for
anybody other than these two owners
if they have a party and people want to
park they they don't commute if they're
if they sell the south park house
and someone else have a house have a
party they're not communicating they're
they're not friendly they have to park
on the street but they're not going to
be surprised that they have a shared
driveway it's not going to be sprung on
that but i think the value of the house
gets diminished because nobody in the
future is going to want to buy for the
same price point that they would without
a shared driveway
thank you the price point here is not a
shared driveway street
thank you
uh any other
public comment
seeing none will close the public
comment on this
any other board discussion
correct
you know
we want that
well the you know the intent at the
start was okay there is a wide driveway
that exists down the center of the
property right now that's in place
that's completely usable and if the
owners agree that they are comfortable
sharing that driveway you know it saves
green space it saves on curb cuts saves
out street parking um
so you know if you i think the burden is
on the owner to share that maintain it
with their neighbor at that point um
you know when we talked at arb about the
possibility of a second driveway
um
there's a lot of ways to do that in the
future they've just chosen not to
because it's not required by code to do
so at this point so whether that
property line is struck where we're
proposing at 12 feet north of the
existing primary structure or along the
historical property line you know for
decades there was a driveway that ran
past the house there when the setback
was nine feet
you know uh because that part that's the
only thing that fit on that side when uh
limiters bought the north property they
put in the wider driveway just
because they could right at that point
or have an easement agreement saying the
same thing
nate is this
is there a
prospective buyer or owner other than
michael glyncher where is the suspect
house we're talking about no there's a
prospective buyer
so but unrelated
and with full knowledge that they're
gonna there's gonna be a shared driveway
and obviously are comfortable with it oh
yeah absolutely
i actually requested it to save green
space and to save tighten down street
trees to have another driveway go across
the front yard
you know there's a lot of natural
screening in place along south columbia
in front of these two properties and
it's just a way to maintain that as well
any other
board questions or comments or
discussion
seeing none ms rose if you could read
the findings of facts and conclusions of
law
i would say it's as proposed unless
there's
a issue with the board
is
to also allow the goal to be 44.6
from the lot
more flats width and the full house
should be 55 percent of the motor class
limit
as it exists
and
to further require the following
conditions
that it can be submitted to accommodate
two driveways as an option
the last split is an initiative
fundamental structure to be built and
worldwide
foreign
questions
they're charged okay this was the
variance file from the board in 2014
under pca application number
14-056
so it's an amendment to that
application
uh
as submitted at the
august 25th
2022 board designing the planning
then subdivided so you're going to allow
what you're saying is what they proposed
was to allow the parcels to be split and
then subdivided to adjust
does the applicant understand the
finding findings of facts as read by ms
rose
yes i do
i had a question
if the if the pool house and the pool is
already existing the lot's still
separate
why do they need a variance on the pool
and the pool house now when when it's an
existing lot i mean it's out of
it's like going back on something that's
already been built and saying now they
have to get a variance it's because of
the accessory structure code has changed
since that variance was or since those
structures were built yeah but you
wouldn't if it was an existing structure
you wouldn't go back on it
you wouldn't go back on my garage but
now all of a sudden it doesn't make code
and say that i need to get a variance on
it
uh
he's asking them to be legitimized by
recognizing that they don't meet the
current code by splitting the lots so we
figured we may as well add those in
because then it makes that almost more
appropriate
in case of damage being able to rebuild
it as well since all right
yeah good that's a good good question
though
just don't want somebody coming after my
garage
oh okay uh
my microphone was off so i want to
reread the
findings effect
the findings the second decision of the
board for application number bzap 22-34
for property located at 216 south
columbia
upon consideration of the application
prepared 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 a variance from mexico section 1252
to allow
a
lot split
to subdivide
the existing
lot into two parcels to allow
the pool
to be 44.6
of the north lot and to allow the whole
house to be 55 point
55 of the north lot
and also with the following conditions
that a plan be submitted to accommodate
two driveways as an option
the lots was conditioned upon a
principal structure to be built on the
north lot as recommended and conditioned
by the architecture review board
while the shared driveways remain a
driveway easement is to be filed and
approved by the city
and to further amend the zoning
application 14-05
previously approved in 2014 by the
zoning board
got it
um does the board want to make any
changes to that
i have a question possibly a suggestion
in the world of real estate split a lot
split
suggests there's one owner
and here there are two owners so would
it not be technically more accurate to
say
that
this amends the prior restriction
on these parcels only being sold
together
rather than
allowing them to be split because
someone looking back is going to think
why did we do that they're already split
so it's to allow prop to allow further
allow
one of the two properties to be conveyed
to be treated as separate properties
several persons parcels
parcels
and permit a lot line adjustment
which would be technically
people would see that as a split but
that's i see it as a lot line adjustment
it's a split combination
keeping it separate
to be treated and remain as separate
parcels
mr levine is that
that sounds that sounds good
thank you
does someone want to make a motion to
vote for approval
so moved
we are second
make a second to vote turner
roll call
mr shake no
mr levine yes mr
turner
yes
mr kane yes
chairman marsh yes
all right thank you very much
uh let's see next item is bzap 22-33
uh 70 south parkview do we have anybody
here to speak to this
oh there is okay great i got a phone
call yeah
from mexico right yes
i have enough information to probably
hurt myself so i'll i'll get through it
all right well i'll i'll do my staff
report on this
that's seventy sound
yep seventy south park view
okay
the applicant is seeking a variance from
mexico section 12 64.03 b a fencer wall
for combination thereof shall exceed 48
inches in height in his side yard back
area as it faces a public or private
street
to allow a proposed 55 inch high
aluminum fence along the south end of
this lot along powell avenue side of the
lot
the property property currently has
fencing along a portion of the driveway
that kind of comes off of powell and
swings around to the back of the house
the area where they would like to
install the 55-inch aluminum fence is
just behind a heavily landscaped portion
of the lot making it difficult to even
see
or get a picture
oh that's right yeah they did signs but
that's a large view pdf that's funny
i've got pictures in the staff before
that's good
yeah that helps so it's actually
matching some of the fences that already
exists that's correct and it's the same
identical height it's this i believe
it's a six foot oh no yeah if you could
be sworn in just state your name brett
lucart and um
do you swear your testimony will be
truthful i do perfect go ahead um i
believe this is a six foot and the other
side where they're coming off would be a
lower
five foot fence
yes i think just due to the fact that
they're
having an issue find even finding the
six foot i think they would prefer but
the same time i think the five foot
one is less noticeable too
a little bit easier to get at this time
and the fact that we usually have them
submit landscape plans along with
fencing
uh i don't think is necessary in this
case
is there anyone in the audience wish to
speak to this application
seeing no one we close the public
comment
any uh any board discussion comments
questions
i drove by the property this afternoon
uh mr
chair
yeah i'm sorry
i didn't know what to call you there um
and i think it would be a nice addition
and also um provide some additional
privacy for the family
any other discussion no i went by it too
the only thing i was gonna say is just
the ground does raise so it's probably
actually six feet above the sidewalk but
the fact you're not going to six feet
with the fence
i think that's good
and plus it's off i was worried about it
being right on the sidewalk too because
i hadn't seen that that said that i
drove by it i hadn't seen the setback so
no i think it's great
we could have findings of facts
in conclusions of the law please
the findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number b z ap
22-33 for property located at 70 south
parkview
upon consideration of the application
proposed variants and evidence and
testimony before the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant an area variance in mexico
section 122611c have been met
and a variance from mexico section
1264.03 b
to allow 55-inch
fence along the south side lot
as proposed
shall be granted
and does the applicant understand the
findings of facts as read yes
and do i hear a uh motion to vote for
approval
so moved chick
second second second turner roll call
please mr chef yes
mr kane yes
mr turner yes
mr levine yes
chairman marsh yes
great it's approved
um
we have dow other business we have city
zoning updates
yeah i think we're done was there
another
one coming up for delco construction as
well the kelly resident nope no
getting off easy then right
yeah i was told i had one more to go
through so it's not on there okay don't
let him know you're all good okay thank
you yeah sure
yep that was uh the mayor
is going to give you a couple zoning
updates
i don't know if he's here but he is
certainly on his way if not
i texted him
anybody want to br anybody need a break
45 seconds
we'll take it
we'll take we'll take a 40 second break
45 seconds only
so take a quick bathroom break we'll be
right
we'll take
reconvened
okay we are on we are back on
um
wonder um
other other business
and um
the mayor's got some updates on city
zoning
matters i do thank you so a couple
things i just wanted to update you guys
in person
um if you have not already heard from
the gray font on a variety of issues um
one
the
council heard last night in an appeal to
the 81 north drexel decision
um they have not rendered their decision
i just wanted you to know that that had
occurred
i'm
before those happen yeah i'm not saying
i'd even come but i might want to watch
it on some or something because i didn't
i didn't know that was happening and i
don't
in the last one a while ago where they
appealed the second floor of the garage
i didn't know that happened until
afterwards so
yeah
is that the
expansion it is the huntington house um
and kathy i'm sorry catherine's looking
physically
we would love to notify you
no i don't think it's necessary i mean i
don't think it's by law or anything i
have to be notified i would just
absolutely i'd like to say i mean i'd
like to see if i'm doing something wrong
as well kathy is that something that we
have to watch on video and can't attend
them in person i'll do that i mean
that'd be great we will endeavor to do
that
and it is on our it is you can view it
um
after the fact but you can view it on
the huge cities youtube channel
um but we will do that okay thank you um
the solar panel ordinance which you guys
have discussed
we've been working with the arb to try
to
address concerns they have and make sure
that they're comfortable with it we're
expecting them to
even though it's not required by code
we're expecting them to formally
sign off on it at their next meeting
um per your request i think you guys
have wanted to have their their feedback
on that so
it's been amended a little bit but it i
think the spirit of what we're trying to
accomplish is still there which it's
been a great process so you can expect
that at your september meeting
the
third thing i had was that
in earlier this month we learned that
the b zap decision to grant a
conditional use permit
to the proposed multi-family residential
development france livingston was
overturned by a franklin county common
pleas judge
um
that decision is public and something
that we can circulate to you so you can
read it
that appeal was defended by legal
counsel of the developers of the project
and we did have some
our council had limited involvement with
the common pleas appeal
so
after our
legal review of the judge's decision
which quite frankly features a fairly
unconventional interpretation of common
and lawful zoning provisions
we believe that the judge aired in
reversing the bexley bezap's
well-supported granting
of a conditional use permit to that
proposed multi-family project so
we furthermore believe that an appeal to
the 10th district court of appeals is
necessary to protect the rights of
bexley property owners
and the integrity of the city's code and
we will be proceeding accordingly
and our city attorney mark official will
be quarterbacking that i think we'll
also be working with uh catherine
cunningham as our zoning council so i
wanted to be aware of that
most of the legal
uh work
i think most legal work up to this point
was the developers legal work we did
file a brief as well but
because of the particulars that decision
and the way that they impact really
every aspect of the concept of
conditional use we feel it's necessary
to defend that so we will continue down
that path and i feel like i had a fourth
thing
can you guys think of anything
what's that
the um design guidelines will be
presented to exactly what i had no it's
not but that's good
to the architecture review board and at
um the next meeting
um
then we'll give it a month
for review as in for you guys to see it
as well before we then take it to city
council for them to
prove bless it i don't know what the
right
legal is but it um
fell off 140 pages at this point and
it's been a lot of hard work and
karen has put a ton of work into it uh
with assistance
also from a lot of arb members so yeah
i've remembered the fourth thing the
fourth thing is that just so you guys
have a heads up in advance council is
considering
an expansion
of the
um of the
the use variants
uh for the carriage house the property
you just considered at 216 south
columbia
the existing carriage house has an
existing use variance to allow it to be
a residence for a family member or a
staff member or somebody who's not
paying rent
it's
the numbers in my head are roughly
around 800 square feet of space they're
asking to expand it by 255 square feet
on that second floor space same
conditions would apply
that is a councilmatic use variance does
not involve
other board or commission feedback
unless council asked specifically for it
it had a first reading this week a third
reading is expected
september 27th so i just wanted you guys
to be aware of that
and if you have any questions about it
let me know or talk to council
all right
correct
council does have the right to ask it to
come before any board but that's i don't
i don't conventionally i don't think a
used variance does
right
i just wanted you guys to know that in
case you've heard about it and you're
like wait a second i thought we just did
something on that so they're two
separate processes
correct yeah
yeah this the structure is yeah the good
point
the reason you didn't see it is the
structure is conforming it's a
conforming
physical uh detached or accessories
accessory use the expansion would
continue to be conforming to the code
any questions for me
if you haven't done it drive down
livingston avenue the striping is now in
place it is a three lane instead of a
four lane road it feels radically
different to drive on so go experience
it it's a great way to party tonight on
your way home
i don't i mean it's there's still orange
barrels up and down they still have uh i
think east of roosevelt maybe they still
have the barrels in place um
so i don't know if you guys have driven
i don't know if i looked why i looked at
you
well you should try it out
what's that
oh my gosh i love this okay so the
medians are a long-term recommendation
that require
practically speaking require federal
funding that's like a seven year horizon
so
columbus
repaved livingston and restriped it
in the past month or so
and did some curb work um so
it like
when you drive i just drove it today for
the first time they just striped it like
it was like just marked out a couple
days ago when you drive it like
you're like ah this is what's been
missing like there's a it's a turn
length right you know like you have a
safe way to turn you're not like tight
the cars are removed about three feet
from the curb with with striping i mean
i'm not telling you that everyone
follows striping all the time but it
does really change the feel of that
nope
it just further removes the cars from
the sidewalks are so close to the curb
on livingston in general it just further
removes the cars from the sidewalks
yeah no it's not a bike lane yeah but i
drove it yesterday for the first time
coming from like the jcc to bethlehem
and it's a tremendous different feeling
right
it's just i don't know why where does it
start does it start starts at college
and it goes east at college it's still
like it's flanged out to four lanes at
that point with the center turn line and
it merges in
by the time you get to francis it's
merged into one lane each direction
yeah
and there will be
it looks like and it's interesting
because this wasn't part of our
conversation with columbus so they looks
like they've added a they are adding a
hawk
like the pedestrian actuated flashing
crosswalk beacon at near chelsea in
maine and also a little further down in
front of um
i think in front of christ the king i'm
not
north on college if you're heading west
yeah that was already
there
no it still is two lanes
yeah
check it out it's cool sounds fun i mean
when do we ever get so excited about
striping on pavement but uh it's worth
it particularly if you're excited you
just want to calm down it's
yeah it's calming
very calmly i mean it made me want to
drive like 27 but i also drive like a
grandmother so that's well established
i noticed you want livingston done and
it gets done quick when i wanted college
done it took place what's the person
you believe it yeah that's not cool it's
not cool
all right thank you guys
yeah
anything else on our agenda