oh
all right
yes
is
so we are going to maybe start here
through the public jazz
all right
members you can uh
check your microphones to make sure
they're either on or off the way you
want them to be
and i think it's uh 6.05
so let's call the meeting order and go
through some of the preliminaries
so this is the
february 2022.
get that right
meeting of the bexley board of zoning
and planning
i'm going to call the meeting order
we are awaiting a
fourth member of the board who uh
indicated that they got stuck somewhere
and they're going to be here a few
minutes late
so we'll go
uh with
the roll call when she gets here
and instead
i make a couple of announcements the
first is that
application bzap 21-47
involving 81 north drexel
uh has been tabled
until the march 24th meeting or maybe
what what i should say is we need a
motion so i i might need to have a
quorum here to do that but nonetheless i
want to make the announcement now so
that if anybody is here to comment
either pro or con that application
uh
go home and have some dinner
and then come back and then come back in
march yeah
so we'll go through the formal part of
uh getting that uh case
officially tabled
once we have a quorum
we do have a opportunity for
members of the general public to make
comments about the operation of the uh
board of zoning and planning
at this time
we're not
able to take comments about any
particular case but rather just about
the operation
of the board so if anybody is here
who wishes to make any general public
comments now is your opportunity
i see no indication of such nobody's
running up to the lectern so we'll
assume that there are no
folks wishing to do so
uh
we have
is the
what is the staff report uh on that's
number four a on the agenda is that a
have to do with a particular case
oh no that's just the entire staff
report that we can bring up oh okay
thank you
this is uploaded to the i see okay cool
well do we have we have to approve the
minutes i think i need a quorum to do
that as well but but why don't we take a
minute or two and make sure you
reviewing the the last meeting was
december 2nd as i recall
uh of the uh
i don't know or no was it yeah
no
what about january we didn't we couldn't
have a meeting because we didn't have a
quorum
oh in january right and we only had a
couple cases or something like that
right
okay so the last meeting was december
2nd
it looks like the minutes are not
published
well they are but they were oh were they
not on the january i looked on the
january one and rick says that it
indicated a arb under the bees app yeah
we'll have to um so well let's just have
to skip that and do it next month we'll
table okay it's until next month and
we'll have two all right we'll defer the
approval of the minutes
from december 2nd
until next month
all right so we will
be in
temporary recess should only be about
uh five or five or so minutes and then
we will reconvene
turn off uh
it's back on
all right
we'll
reconvene
thank you
for coming
um
i think we call uh the role kathy please
mr levine
here mr here chairman
i'm here as well thank you
we uh just want to just let you know we
had the opportunity for public comment
and we also uh decided that we would
defer approval of minutes till uh the
next meeting because of a publication
issue
and so we are now an old business and
the first matter
in that category is application bzap
21-44 involving 280 south columbia
the applicant and the owners corey
tishkoff
the applicant is requesting a
recommendation to the board
uh
to review and approve
uh
the
architectural review
and issue a strict a certificate of
appropriateness for a pool and pool
house in the side yard
and uh is uh mr tishkoff here
or if not
why don't you come up and take us a
stand at the lectern and i'll swear you
in do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you give this evening will be
the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do thank you very much
all right
kathy can you give us uh i know we've
seen this
before but
not everybody on the board might have
been here last time so
uh let's uh
get a rundown of where the staff uh
thinks this matter is all right this lot
is 141 feet wide by 250 feet deep and
the house sits back on the lot and has
an attached garage at the rear the back
of the lot also is has a substantial
change in grade
the north side of the lot may be a more
ideal location for a pool and pool house
due to the fact that it's flat
and
has a wide width code requires a pool to
be set back eight feet from a side or
rear property line the lot
is wide enough to allow the pool deck to
be approximately 17 feet from the north
side property line and the pool
to be approximately 27 feet from the
north side property line
the side yard location not only provides
the ability to set the pole further from
the neighboring property but also be
located next to the existing landscape
buffer located just north of that north
side property line
previously the design concept of the
poll house was shared with the
architects review board and this board
however we didn't have specific details
the details have since been before the
architects review board
who further recommended approval to the
board designing planning for final
design details
and subject to
the variants
the pool house meets code the fact that
it is located in the side yard along
with the pool is what is
what requires the variance if the board
finds granting a variance to be
appropriate staff would also ask that
the balance of the landscape to be
subject to review and approval by the
landscape consultant or i'm sorry the
tree and public garden commission
because they
there were some
sections that haven't been planted since
the house was built
and i will defer to karen on any details
that the board may need to be aware of
in the changes um okay actually the
application that came before the board
for the second time at architecture
review board was approved by consent
agenda but it wasn't even heard it was
approved based on that
the submission of more details which i
think you've seen in this packet
um yes by true before we had just
received
kind of
um some sketchup kind of drawings
three-dimensional but not complete and
these are now all complete and the board
approved it by consent so there are no
conditions other than just the normal
um my review for construction documents
in the middle
okay and in in this case the
the variance is for which issue
to allow accessory structures in the
side yard code restricts accessory
structures to the rear yard
okay and and this is one of those
situations where what is the side yard
as opposed to what is the front yard and
it's not a corner lot
but
due to the fact that the house set so
far back and the grade change yeah uh it
seemed more appropriate to place it in a
side yard and it interacts better i
believe with the house as opposed due to
the fact that there is a garage attached
to the back
okay
are there any photos in the record to
get us oriented
there's a photo
attached to my staff report that's an
aerial view
and it clearly shows a row of are those
arbor vita that are along that north
property line those are the neighbors
yeah it's a wall of trees and then
there's a grassy area beyond that
because the house is a little bit of an
l-shaped
so it kind of screens it also from the
street
as well
okay
mr tishkov why don't you tell us what
your
general uh plan is here and and what
what you would like us to prove and why
or if you have anything to add to what
they've said consider the
there's your picture yeah there you go
we consider that a side yard
right the backyard just due to
um
like kathy said
uh the house is set back
that you know technically behind the
house is
there's not a lot of room back there
right uh that side yard is what we feel
is the most appropriate place to put a
pool and a full house and it
does have the screening to uh to kind of
be hidden from
colombia and
you certainly aren't gonna
see it from anywhere north on columbia
even in front of the house i i don't
think it would be very visible based on
the north part of uh of the construction
of the house
because the house is sort of
not exactly an l but it's got a little l
element to it there it does that that's
a screen in porch on that side the other
side is actually a
kind of a pass through so it
uh you know it balances out but
that's that's on the driveway side of
the house and you can see through that
because there's there's no structure
behind it
and there's a line of trees on the um
i'm gonna say on the south border
right there
that's the north that's the north yeah
i'm sorry pretty substantial uh yeah
certainly during pool season
when they grow out and they those were
planted maybe
three or four years ago i want to say so
they're only going to get bigger you're
still growing yeah right and they'll
grow believe me you know
all right
same thing on the
west side
we've got a pretty good array it looks
like of
plants the west side is uh that's the
that's columbia um no that's columbia
okay i'm on the east side is uh yeah
that's that's all
uh a lot of great a lot of coverage yeah
yeah a lot of coverage on both sides
yeah
and it looks like a fence is is in the
plans here as well
is that correct around the pool it would
be required minimum 48 inches all
self-closing
and self-lodging gates and that's drawn
in correct
uh i'm not sure that's okay something
that's required for the building permits
they're aware of that oh yeah they're
aware of it yeah
right
well let me ask if there's anybody in
the audience that is for or against this
application please
i see no indication of such
members of the board
do you have any questions or comments
ryan says no
i think my only comment would be it
doesn't even appear that you could
easily place a pool behind the house so
this is essentially the only option they
have yeah
yeah
plus you know it's like
what's the side yard and what's the rear
yard in a situation like this
this is the backyard really that's how
we do it yeah
and i guess i could note that
architecturally the comment was made
this is the only real
sighting of the pool that makes sense
yeah you know for a practical and
usability standpoint yeah it would not
work very well i'd have to
yes you want us to put in the front but
that might be a bad how about
uh has there been any comment from the
neighbor
to the
bottom of the picture i see to be
totally confused about directions here
i'm not sure why but
uh
any comments from uh that you're aware
of or are they aware of your plans i
don't know if they're aware but they
have a pool um on the
south side of their south
east side of their lot okay so
it's it'd be far enough away and there's
enough tree coverage that i don't they
don't
merge but
yeah we can
if we wanted to look and we can kind of
see to their to their pool yeah i don't
see that being in front of a
relationship with them
and and they certainly got notice yes of
course
okay
rick any questions or
all right um
can we hear findings of fact conclusions
of law kathy please
findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number bzap
21-44 for property located at 280 south
columbia 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 of variance in
mexico section
122611c have been met and it variants
from vexi code section 1252.16
g and a to allow a pool and pool house
in the side yard due to the
grade of the rear yard
shall be
allowed with the following conditions
one a landscape plan is subject to
review by the trading public garden
commission and that the
plan should be in substantial
conformance with the rendering and plan
submitted to the board
okay are there any
uh
comments from members of the board about
the
uh
the contents of the
findings of fact conclusions of law
let's discover you okay with the reading
and the and the conditions that were
associated there with in other words did
you have to get approval from the trade
commission
and uh comply with all code requirements
for to get the building permit obviously
is that still elena
she coordinates for the training public
garden commission
and i don't know if you wanted me to
make the certificate of appropriateness
a part of this motion as well yeah i
think we can on this case yeah okay and
uh consideration of an
board further considers a certificate of
appropriateness be issued in accordance
with the recommendation from the
architecture review board
for the pool house
okay
do i hear a
motion for approval of the findings in
fact conclusions of law from a member of
the board please so moved
is there a second second thank you
ms rose call the roll please
mr sheikh yes miss dorne yes mr levine
yes chairman bihar i vote yes as well
the
uh application is successful good luck
with your project it looks like a great
project
all right the next case
uh
is
case b z ap 21-47
the applicant has
uh
requested a tabling
until the march 24th meeting
does anybody on the board have an
objection to tabling that matter if not
i'd entertain a motion to table till the
march meeting
thank you is there a second second thank
you can uh heidi
uh
county please call the role on the
motion to table mr shea yes
mr levine yes mr storm yes german b hall
i
abstain
but this matter is the the motion to
table is past
under the new rules right yes majority
all right the next case is bzap
21-48
involving 219 north drexel
the applicant is amy lauerhouse the
owner
owners are francis mas and eric katz the
applicant is requesting requesting
architectural review and a certificate
of appropriateness for a detached garage
and art studio
the applicant is also seeking a
673 square foot variance from bexley
city code
1252.15 a
which states that an accessory use or
structure shall be permitted in
association with a principal residential
structure provided that the maximum
building footprint for a lot size of 14
000 square feet to 24 000 square feet
does not exceed 720 square feet
that was quite a mouthful
all right
amy would you raise your right hand to
be sworn
do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give this evening will be
the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do thank you very much
kathy
bring us up to date on this
application please all right
uh
this application is this applicant is
seeking a variance to allow for a
detached garage that has two parking
spaces
equaling 616 square feet and an
additional first floor
space would accommodate a 777 square
foot art studio the applicant has
indicated that the chemical products
used in the process
of the type of art being created is not
something they would want to use within
the principal structure and why they
have decided to seek a variance for
additional space within the new detached
garage the variance would allow the
applicant to exceed the size of the
structure's footprint by 673 square feet
staff has been working with the
applicant and recommended that a
cross-section be provided to compare the
height and mass
comparison of the proposed accessory
structure in existing principle
structure which is 202 stories in height
and has unique design details
okay
let's see the application was before the
architecture review board in january and
tabled by the applicant to return in
february with suggested modifications
included to include some of the unique
design details of the principal
structure the applicant has since
returned to the february arab with the
revised plans arb has a recommended
approval of the certificate of
appropriateness to the board of zoning
planning
subject to zoning review and i'll defer
to karen to talk about those questions
thank you karen
this application was um before the board
at arb and was tabled the first time for
some changes
um then amy but actually i don't even
know if i would say it was recommended
it wasn't tail it was recommended to be
zapp with the
um recommendation that it come back for
final design approval to arb okay that
was the original recommendation yes
because we didn't have a quorum in
january and we didn't have a meeting
it kind of putting me right back on the
normal track yeah
which actually worked out to everybody's
advantage it really did it only extended
the
project for two weeks um and amy made
the changes that were requested i can go
over them if you'd like me to but um the
architecture review board is very happy
with the elevation that you saw it was
just incorporating some details of what
is
a gorgeous home um and some of the tutor
details into
what you know we all agree
um
is a little bit
shorter than probably is appropriate for
the massing but giving the use this was
kind of the trade-off was to put some
additional details in and and balance it
out that way so um
it it now has a positive recommendation
and a recommendation in favor
of your approval here without any
conditions left
okay no conditions amy why don't you
tell us a little bit about
how and and why we got to where we are
yes so
uh as cathy mentioned earlier um
the homeowner is an artist and um i i
did put in if you're interested in the
submittal a sample of her art she uses
uh epoxy resins and there are a lot of
fumes with that um so she is looking to
put her art studio in the the accessory
structure
they don't have any garage at all right
now so as part of that they wanted to
add
a garage as well
her canvases are quite large so
um she
doing sort of like a second
story kind of idea wasn't really
appropriate for her needs and
besides that a two-story garage is is
not allowed anyway um so we
went to sort of more of a carriage house
look
um
the lot is quite large it's it's very
wooded
um
i have a couple other uh drawings that
karen can bring up
that show
the
do you have the aerial yeah and the um
cut sheet
yeah
the next one
no there there was in the application
there was like seven different
things um the one showed the site from
the side with the street and the garage
oh i think
i think we need to go back
back to this that parts of my staff
report
so so yeah i've done a sort of a side
elevation
that shows the
house
in relationship to the the proposed
structure and also
the distance to the street
um this yeah there's one um that shows
you kind of the size of the two houses
next to it our house is actually quite a
bit smaller than the two adjacent houses
um and the garage is sitting quite a
quite a far ways back
um so if you go to the next i think it's
the next one
um
yes
you can see there that's looking from
the north side that shows the house the
the new proposed garage to the right and
then on the left it shows where the
sidewalk and street are
so you can get kind of a perspective of
how far back this
garage is actually sitting
and it's also you can see there from the
site plan above that
um
three quarters of the garage structure
is kind of tucked between behind the
primary structure
so from the sidewalk all you will see is
sort of half of the garage part of that
so i feel
like
it's an appropriate size for the lot for
the houses and the properties
surrounding it um
just to give you an exam uh the the
numbers so to speak um a lot building
coverage in this zoning district is 25
and we're only at 13.3
um and lot coverage is 50 allowable and
we're only at 28.4
so we're still significantly under the
coverages even with the larger structure
um
and
i don't know if you have the aerial or
the
that front elevation that kind of showed
how the house sat behind the
uh
no it's attached to the viewpoint but
but also i mean i'll speak there there's
a
turnaround at the
beginning of that driveway which
they received variants four years ago
and there was a landscaping requirement
which is why it is so heavily screened
in the front near that driveway
yeah it's it's really hard to see back
there at all obviously
do you want me to find something else
because um they're not all on yeah if if
the only two things that weren't on
there was the aerial that just shows how
heavily wooded the site is okay um and
then
the front elevation perspective that
shows the garage sort of tucked behind
the the house
um
i'm just going to go back
you can start discussion so
the question i have is
so
this limitation of 720 square feet
applies to certain
sizes of lots yes and a 14 000 square
foot lot gets treated exactly the same
as a 24 000 square foot lot
is that
correct
yes yeah anything from
right fourteen thousand to four hundred
fourteen thousand four hundred
to
twenty three thousand nine hundred
ninety nine that's limited to seven
hundred and twenty
how many square feet is this
um
that's what i don't have it in my file i
know it's on the um
wait hold on a second
it's
two thousand nine hundred and fifteen
yeah so that's the range
that allows the seven hundred and twenty
yeah
i mean just
and the reason i asked that question is
because just intuitively it doesn't look
like it's over built for the lot to look
at it from a visual
perspective to me and i mean i certainly
invite other board members comments
in that regard and that was one of the
reasons why we recommended that she
submit
a side cross-section that does show in
comparison that the massing of the house
and
from construction
all right let me ask if there's anybody
in the audience that is here
on this matter either in favor or
opposed to it
okay i see no indication of such
have you
heard anything from any of the neighbors
one way or the other that's on either
side
um
my my client got in touch with them and
and there were no negative comments okay
i had a question about how close it's
located to the adjacent property
has that been has
has that been
kind of happened yet or is that
something we need to consider as well
because it looks like there's room to
move it
within limits i i just didn't know if
that was part of what we're considering
that would be my only concern so can
karen can you go back to the site the
overall the regular site plan looking
for your files okay oh there we go
that's everything yeah which one of
these um
the
site just this the one that just says
site nope nope down about halfway down
right here yeah
and in the new accessory code
the minimum setback for an accessory
structure that's detached is three feet
unless you have a side facing dormer
then it's that it is required to be at
least ten feet from the uh neighboring
property line yes within
okay so they were just building the
structure on the right hand side of that
photo or that pic diagram uh and it was
720 square feet they could build it
without coming here right here
so what's built to the left side of it
is is the additional
part of it okay
exactly
okay
would anyone else like to see the
anything else
yeah that's my next question or any
other questions from members of the
board or comments from members of the
board regarding
this application
it just makes you wonder why the world
is even there yeah it does exactly just
a little bit of a variance this is 100
almost
80 90
yeah i mean it it
from our perspective i think the
presidential value is what's
dangerous a little dangerous for us in
the sense that
you know they bought the house they knew
what the restrictions were and how they
want to build this big uh addition
uh which they need a variance for and
it's not like somebody's gonna die if
they don't build it but it's just a
matter of
if we say yes here
do we now get ourselves into a position
as a board of do we say yes anytime we
have a
you know
i mean i think if it were a 14 000
square foot lot
and it were more crowded and it were
closer to the street closer to the
neighbors
i mean i think we would be hard-pressed
to okay something like this
on a 22
950 square foot lot right it's it looks
a little less but that's almost a matter
of statutory
reform here you know if
if
council wants us to regard lots that are
say greater than 20 000 square feet
different than we do lots that are
15 000 square feet they should change
the the rule right and this is in
between the two size requirements
because the next size lot would be 24
000 square feet and over and that
maximum footprint for an accessory
structure would be 936
square feet so this wouldn't fit on that
either no yeah yeah i think
you're right in that because it's at the
upper end of that range it's in
relationship to the site it's such a
small percentage of the lot coverage
yeah
and i think
you know just like you do with every
case i mean
the the whole point of the the board of
zoning appeals is to take things on a
case-by-case basis and i think you know
given the size of the lot and on that
overall on karen on the neighborhood
site plan um
the the
um
the property to the rear is either a
double or a triple lot
and um yeah the very first one
and that one
basically
if you if you look on that
our garage the back of our garage is
their tennis court
um which is right there yeah
um so yeah it's actually over a triple
lot
um
but you know you can kind of see the
relationship of our garage compared to
their tennis court
it's you know like you said it's
that's why i tried to demonstrate sort
of the perspective of the neighborhood
and the sizes of the houses compared to
the size of the garage
mr chairman yes we talked uh he raised a
concern about establishing a president
here
what
gives me
particular concern about this project is
and it's
the core function of a variance is
generally to relieve a hardship
and in this variance they're being asked
to construct a studio because they use
epoxy resin which is
apparently noxious fumes
but if you actually look at the
renderings of this the garage studio
plan
50 of the art studio is actually an
exercise
studio
and so that's sort of in many ways i'm
troubled by that because
they've come here they've said that they
want to move the art studio out of the
house because of noxious fumes but then
they want to do cardio cardiovascular
activities
right next to these part of part of what
they wanted to accomplish in there i
think it's probably about
maybe 30 percent of the overall studio
would be used for that
um she's got
you know uh just about 40 here walls
that she hangs are she's got special um
on the walls special places where she
hangs her art and that kind of thing
um
i think this would be a good uh
situation for us to pull up the
the requirements for a variance
because
i don't want to
contradict mr schick but i'm not sure
the word hardship appears in that
statute but there are plenty of other
requirements that we need to to review
and i think would be a good chance for
us to review them right now
and look and see what the statute
actually requires of us
most cases we don't have to think too
hard but this one here will require us
to do a little bit i i think everything
in that plan is the art studio other
than those two pieces of equipment okay
um yeah
12 26.11
c
one through seven
okay
draw me to read okay
okay
well and i i mean i think it's a it's a
lovely structure and the purpose is
great and i i feel somewhat of the same
concern that
is this
somewhat opening pandora's box because
not only does it not fit in the under 24
000 square feet but it also
doesn't fit within the larger
lot size and
i mean i i just wonder
you know again
what the purpose of the rules are if
we're really not going to follow them
and i you know
i do i i i agree this is a beautiful
rendering and and structure and i see
the the purpose for it but
i i it does give me pause yeah
i think that's why it's good to review
this because
what
we're not in the business of doing is
legislating
we're in the business of taking a law
and saying
a restriction and saying that
uh the circumstances are such
uh
that
a variance from that rule is appropriate
in in this case
and i think we should look at those uh
parameters
tonight just to make sure that we're
to help us vote put it that way too
yes
yes sir
is that the property owner
yes yes
because these questions aren't they
within the application better address
all these yes the seven questions are in
the in the application that i submitted
so so the applicant has provided answers
to the variance criteria
so
we'll see if we can pull that
on up yeah mr chairman i would
direct your attention to 1226.11
um
d
mm-hmm
when you you have in there in front of
you why don't you read them to us
because i can pull that i have pulled up
oh do you okay beautiful
going off
okay there we go i was gonna say you
just had it up there yeah yeah
okay so use variances this is a use
variance right no
it's a
it's an
area variance it's the area variance
okay see it's exceeding the size of that
b then
yeah there you go yeah
c okay for c so the b zap shall have the
power to grant non-use variances
from the provisions of the zoning code
so we do have the right to vary from the
zoning code except for a variance from
the minimum lot requirement of any
district which may only be determined by
city council applying standards of
irreverence
now city council city council blah blah
the following factors shall be
considered in weighed by the board when
making a determination upon any area
non-use variances by a preponderance of
the evidence
so there's
a lot of lawyers on this board so we all
understand what a preponderance of the
evidence means sorry the and those uh
determinations are whether the property
in question will yield a reasonable
return or whether there can be any
beneficial use of the property without
the variance well clearly there can be
whether the variance is substantial
i think
heidi's point is that you know even if
it were greater than 24 000 square feet
even a a 900 and some square foot
limitation applies so it's probably is
substantial
whether the essential character of the
neighborhood could be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties
would suffer a substantial detriment as
a result of the variance
i'd like everybody to comment on that
but i'm
guessing that probably
there would not be any essential
neighborhood character alteration here
and i doubt whether adjoining properties
would suffer a detriment a result of the
variance so
that one is one that probably uh
in yours to the favor of the applicant
the next one is whether the variance
would adversely affect the delivery of
government services
i think we're pretty clear that's not
going to be the case
they're talking about fire there
primarily but yes there are other
government services as well
whether the property owner purchased the
property was not with knowledge of the
zoning restriction we'd certainly have
to assume that that they did
purchase it and they can read english
but they probably didn't really i was
going to say i pretty much i can think
of one client in the last 20 years that
i've answered yes to this question
they just owners just don't have a
concept of the zoning requirements for
the property of course on the other hand
ignorance of the law is no excuse as we
all know
it is yeah i would say and i would say
they have they certainly have some
they have the capability of reading the
bexley city code they do
all right so we'll go with that whether
the property owner's predicament
feasibly can be obviated through some
method other than a variance
i don't think so
in this case
whether the
spirit i mean the one question would be
is this a predicament at all i guess
would be a question you'd have to ask
but assuming that they're in a
predicament they'd like to do x and the
code is preventing them from doing x it
becomes a predicament
i guess
whether the spirit and intent behind the
zoning requirement would be observed and
substantial justice done by granting the
variance there you go now that one is a
little bit more wide-ranging
the spirit intent of the zoning code
zoning requirement would be that we
don't over build
on lots
that's the zoning
issue here right and we don't want a
2000 square foot garage on a uh 8 000
square foot lot right i mean
there's a reason for this
part of the code i guess
i would reply to that with going back to
the lot and the building and development
cover
because i think those are in place to
prevent something like that from
happening from the very beginning we
can't build
you know
too much structure on too small a lot
so
i guess there's sort of a
i don't know a mismatch of the fact that
i can't build the structure yet
my development and lot and building
cover limits are only half of what i'm
allowed
[Music]
right right in other words there's
another
code section that says
a percentage lot coverage
because that prevents the two thousand
square foot garage on a thousand square
foot lot in this case the percentages
are
you know they have fifty percent lot
coverage would be eleven thousand five
hundred
square feet of building right and here
we have far less than that right right
yeah and i i think also i mean this is
very helpful bringing this up um because
it really shows you that
potentially no one factor controls
that's a balancing and a weighing of all
the factors and i think
it's helpful to see how that plays out
here and it it it makes it a much easier
decision and i think on my end and
hopefully others as well but i think
that was very beneficial to bring up
yeah i i appreciate that and i and i
think that you're right i i think the
way these read and we have to go up a
little further here but i think that if
this is not a you must meet the
following seven criteria
in order to gain passage this is
board here's what you need to consider
all of these factors and making a
decision right
so
that is i think a good analysis of what
confronts us with this matter and mr
chairman if i just say um sorry my
law school escaped me and
with the use variance it's a hardship
with an area of variance it's practical
difficulty okay there you go beautiful
correct that beautiful
so practical difficulty is kind of the
which and that's that's the element that
we have to make the determination upon
with the ponderance the evidence but
going back to my original concerns
when i read this it's art studio but
when i look at this it's full bath and i
disagree it's more than 30 percent um
that of the space that is going to be
used
for exercising when again they wanted to
move the studio out of the house
for the noxious fumes but it just seems
like it's becoming more of a dwelling
unit it's my concern
well
the other issue for the applicant's
consideration is we have four members
here there are seven members
now
uh when
aren't there
i think yeah so
um
so
to get to a majority with seven it
requires four out of seven votes
to get to a majority out of four
requires three out of four votes
with that knowledge and with the fact
that we don't have the full board here
this evening
you certainly have the alternative of
asking us to
uh a cable this matter
uh b
uh to consider maybe uh
to to
mr schick's
critique uh maybe sizing it down so that
it is more in fact designed to do to
handle the noxious fume issue
as opposed to i mean everybody in bexley
would like a little bit more space and
could build if they have a big backyard
could build an extra building in the
backyard if we pass start passing these
right so i i think that
uh though there are some alternatives
that are open to you and i don't know
what your timing is of course this
february would be perfect time to get a
variance so you can move forward during
this summer and fall well i i guess if
if even one person is going to vote no
then it would not pass no no you need
three out of four votes okay um
am i allowed to ask how people are going
to vote no you're not but you are
allowed to go talk to your client if
you'd like and and confer for a few
minutes
please take your time i think this is a
reasonable conference yes
i'm looking at
1252.15.8
and so you did the math and that's how
you came up with the
not the permitted
number of square
feet it says no greater than 35 of the
building footprint uh you're looking
under the old accessory structure code
if you go to our website the third line
down on the front page of the codified
ordinances
contains the new accessory code
and and and then i used the numbering
off that ordinance because there were
some items eliminated so it'll probably
put you in a different spot i'm looking
at the same same order yeah yeah right i
just it up so it does need that
yes square footage
yes it it well it's
it's under it right
i don't think that's what you said
it's a 673 square foot variance
but i mean percentage oh percentage-wise
yes
that's on another part of the
application that i checked
that's correct
uh
yeah right
[Music]
[Laughter]
can i raise a point before you of course
because i think it might be important to
consider as well
if they wouldn't do this there's the
possibility that they could just remove
the structure and they have two
structures in their backyard then two
accessory structures right
i mean that
that could happen
right
i mean that's something i think we need
to consider
in another location a location i mean so
what looks nicer i mean
that's kind of my theory in thinking is
it because these are attached that the
size is large so what if they built two
720 square foot
accessory units and they were under the
50 percent lot coverage
right and not exceeding the lock
coverage we had exactly the situation
and that's what they would do we're
doing a two-structure two-story
[Music]
right
is there a limit on the number of
accessory structures can you have 20
accessory structures if they're all
small
well we'd
we definitely like to request a table
oh okay yes
okay um so and and i can follow up with
you
because i didn't i didn't know about
multiple accessory structures
we yeah i mean there was a life project
just like this let's talk about
at all
separation required between an accessory
structure a garage and a house
okay interesting all right well okay
that is food for thought
no it isn't no no
all right i i think that that we might
achieve and i appreciate your your
client uh being willing to consider that
possibilities i think it's a good one
and maybe we will achieve without
gambling here tonight uh you know on how
the vote goes
uh yeah i i can circle back with karen
and kathy in the next couple weeks it
certainly is a lovely project and we
would all
be glad to have you you approved the
property in this way but we regrettably
have to work within these parameters so
with that in mind with the uh
uh
request of the applicant do i hear a
motion to table this matter until the
march i think march should be long
enough march 24th meeting that that will
be exactly 30 or 28 days from today
so so moved mr schick
second thank you sir
kathy please call the roll miss doran
yes mr levine yes mr shake yes chairman
i vote yes also the matter is table and
thank you and now that we have all this
information next time we won't have to
go through all the grotesque details
sounds great thank you very much amy
all right the next matter before the
board is under new business
and this
the first case is case bzap 22-2
and it involves 2488 fair avenue the
applicant is aaron mccord and the owners
are
kevin and dara albert
uh
mr mccord
all right would you raise your right
hand and be sworn do you swear or affirm
that any testimony you give this evening
will be the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth thank you very
much the applicant is requesting
architectural review and approval of a
certificate of appropriateness for a
two-story addition to the rear of the
existing home at 2488 fair avenue
kathy you want to go first or is this
some more of a of a karen thing
no i can i think it's your i think it's
a you thing
all right everything here is deserving
everything here is a her thing yes
we appreciate the sideshow yes all right
so the background on this is the zoning
code 10 foot separation is not based on
fire code which is met with the
separation of more than six feet but a
zoning code requirement which could be
more of an aesthetic reason the
applicant is looking to provide an
expansion of the kitchen and added mud
room as well as a second floor bathroom
and laundry room this application
applicant chose to take
last month after receiving design
critique from the architecture review
board to include design details and
rough modifications that relate more to
the existing structure the applicant has
since changed the design and has
received recommendation from the
architecture review board for a
certificate of appropriate to the zoning
board with the condition that an
alternate material
for the board and bat
and subject to zoning review and
approval staff would defer to the board
on the proximity to the detached garage
and would further express more concern
about the amount of parking hardscape
and lack of anything green the applicant
has mentioned that there is a thick
layer of concrete in sections of the
pavement that make it difficult to plant
anything but perhaps the board may have
a suggestion
i would ask karen to explain the
revisions made over the past two
architecture review board meetings
regarding the details
okay
karen okay the architects review board
i've heard this
case in
january first and um the application
decided to take to table the application
based on the feedback from the board
which was that it was a very kind of um
boxy contemporary modern edition
but didn't tie in
very well
to the existing structure well i won't
get into too much detail but evelines
didn't match
just all kinds of things so the
applicant was very gracious gave
application went back with his assigner
and came back and with a different
design that the board was very pleased
to see that the volumes match it's a
small addition
the volumes matched up the windows
matched up the eaves match up the
details so it it
works much better and it's a good it's a
good design the only issue that the
board requested and actually the
applicant was fine with it was since
it's so small and you can see this in
photographs
that um the size here and that elevation
right here that the siding just match so
it just looks consistent with what's
there because it's not it's not like a
big enough addition or in a
differential
design
yeah that was actually the original plan
was to do the cedar shape no it wasn't
yeah i think we kind of went from
camp bounce
uh short story along the board said yes
yeah i mean overall the first one was
really bad
like that
it was bad
oh what it was okay
all right
um
mrs regard what do you would you add
anything to what they've uh told us here
yeah i think she's pretty much spot on
okay
there may be some questions for you are
there is anybody here who is for or
against this case please i see no
uh indication
of that so
members of the board do you have any uh
questions or comments
um
the alberts they
um
they acquired this house like within the
last two years is that correct
no they've been there
i don't really know how long they've
earned it but it's been
longer than that for sure but i think
that's the people who move there because
i'm familiar with this good friend's
property above the back and
it's a property in need of some love
the garage is in need of some love in a
bad bad way to be honest
and the whole backyard is uh blacktop
it's literally blacktop i guess
originally the guy that owned that in
the brickhouse next door is what i was
told oh and that he was a jeweler
so he apparently had some kind of
rigging that he would set out in the
driveway so the driveway is blacktop
over concrete
which is a
really gonna be a mess they had a tree
that fell out i guess back in the very
back of the property and then that's how
they figured out concrete's lab
gotcha i mean i just looked at this and
i just think
i see riparian problems left and right
there's just so much non you know
non-porous surface oh my god right
so if you go up a little on that
other up sorry down i guess up to you is
that what it will look like if you go up
one more to the picture
it's the little house
drawing with the lights on yeah there
yeah there was an actual rendering
i don't know where there's actually yeah
right there right there hot and cold
that was a lot good um so is that what
um
that's what it will look like in the
backyard after it's complete
ideally
is it the one on the left do you like
the one on the right no that's actually
just uh
i'm just talking reference rule
i think that whole theory of him showing
that was just to show the board and
baton on a house oh i said not the
challenge
yeah thank you because i thought the
same thing you did there's a subtle cue
there right
and that's what the arb
recommended something other than the
gordon bed i see okay
i'm with you now
so there still will be a driveway back
there yes
it's literally all blacktop
the whole thing is blacktop
so we're really here only talk about
architectural review
there's no variance
addition and the garage a 10-foot
separation is required between the
garage and principal structure
absolutely and this is going to be
constructed
six feet
i see but
okay
and that's not a it's not a fire code
it's more of a it's a zoning code so
it's probably more about aesthetics
[Music]
i think we've improved a lot less
right you know it's really just a matter
of making sure that
it's fireproof it doesn't mean it
doesn't really interfere with garage
doors because there's actually a space
from that corner into the garage door as
well
so the the
it's six feet two inches as opposed to
ten feet from the corner to corner
and i mean even if they didn't build out
eight feet four inches and they only
build out six feet you're still not
going to get to 10 feet correct just
jump geometrically
it doesn't look like they're going to
make it to 10 feet
they probably had 10 feet now the way
the house is built
all the time probably just at 10. yeah
it's close but
otherwise it's fine it's just a matter
of aesthetics and we have had
maybe one case that i think that
aesthetics actually was an issue
i remember yeah
all right
uh
do members of the board have any other
questions or comments
all right
kathy why don't you give us findings of
fact conclusions along we'll we'll
either give you an up or down how's that
go forward
all right the findings of fact and
decision of the board for application
number bzap dash 22-2 for property
located at 2488 fair avenue upon
consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence testimony
before it the board finds the applicant
has proven the criteria to grant
an area variance in mexico section
122611c
has been met in a three foot 10 inch
variance from mexico section 1252.15 g
and c
to allow a two-story addition at the
rear of the principal structure shall be
granted
as
in in accordance with the
uh
so based on based on the
design recommendation from the
architecture review board there you go
for a certificate of appropriateness
yeah that's perfect yeah
are you okay with the findings of fact
as read thank you sir
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law
is there a second
thank you
second
kathy please call the roll
mr shea yes ms doran yes mr levine yes
chairman b hall
i vote yes also in this matter as uh
yours application is granted
thank you i just want to thank the
applicant who worked very hard
okay thanks for your patience
well thanks thanks for your modifying
things to to comport with the
architectural review board thank you
very much
all right the next case involves
755 vernon
it's a bzap-22-3
the applicant is pete foster the
owners are nathan and rachel lang
the applicant is requesting a
recommendation
to the bees app for architectural review
and approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for the addition of a
new second story
floor above an existing first floor on
the west elevation
of the existing residence
in the addition of a new roof and
dormers
to the existing two-story portion of the
existing residence i have to work my way
through that a little bit but i'm sure
you'll help me
mr foster
um
while you're standing there would you
raise your right hand do you swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening with the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth
thank you sir appreciate it kathy tell
us a little bit about the staff's
information on this case okay
no but well if you have any pictures in
there the applicant is seeking a
variance from mexico section
45209.6 zoning which limits the
principal structure to two and a half
stories and shall not exceed 35 feet to
allow a third floor based on the
expansion that exceeds the volume of the
story directly below by more than 66
percent and is considered a third floor
the applicant is raising the roof line
of the existing two-story structure
and adding dormers on the north and
south sides the application indicates
the addition of a new roof and dormers
to the existing second story portion of
the residence however i would read this
as a third floor edition
over a portion of the second floor
mexico section
i would point out that the ridge height
of the existing structure is
25 feet
and with the third floor addition it
would be
31.5 feet in height
which is less than the 35 maximum
allowed
i would further point out that the
structure in question is located on a
40-foot wide lot and is located between
a one-story to the south
structure to the south and a two-story
home to the north
so want to make sure that we are aware
of the additional massing
the foam answered roof breaks down the
overall massing and is being replaced
with a taller gable roof with dormers on
the side
okay
mrs boger
this application was passed as a consent
agenda at the board of architecture
board i will add that i shouldn't i
could see these little drawings in the
staff report that you've totally seen
as requested by kathy just to kind of
show
uh the difference in height i think the
height difference is not as impactful as
where the dormers are but then i kind of
super competent as i did these um
superimpose a more of an opaque
building structure
in the last two and the bottom one
trying to fade it a little bit so you
can see that the dormers aren't really
way up front but
i was just trying to be a little bit
helpful i think as a result of mike
calling pete today
um he may have
brought some extra stuff
all right mr foster why don't you give
us your
take on this thing sure um
first of all
south bexley is a different animal
obviously than uh north bexley and
central i think in its variation of
scale of
problems because we're on 40 foot
majority of us
in south passing after 31 years so i'm
pretty familiar with it
street stage of the
neighborhood um
context context setting is really
important
and um
karen i have discussions today
um
i've done
about two-thirds of the block uh where
this house is oriented
or located i should say um the reason
there's a missing tooth here there are
there is only between these two lots um
their driveways both are on that
in that gap
between
um but you can see we've got some
varying sizes along the way as well as
therefore dormers that are occurring
on a couple of different structures up
and down the street
the request was we've got a growing
young family and request was we would
like to get
another bedroom or two
and so
the house which had sort of a
superimposed ambrel rake on it uh it's
truly just a simple gable roof
um
now
so the idea was to remove that camera
rake
take off this shallow pitched um
legal roof
and uh still have the same bearing
height set into a very height uh
there we are increase
the pitch which is about a nine and a
half twelfth pitch which again is not an
unfamiliar
pitch on uh
many of the houses in in all the texans
but even in central texas very south
texas so
um
i'm not sure
where you got 25 feet from the existing
height but i was scaling the the
existing drawings
okay
um
i think i'm going to be about three feet
higher
than
the current house
so
i don't think it's as big as a
discrepancy as as
you mentioned but
nonetheless that's possible
nonetheless um as you can see this
actually
is the house that we're talking about
so
you know this house here reads a
one-story house where the gable is
actually running north and south and it
does have a second floor up and it's
more of a cape cod situation
this is kind of a sister house to the
one that we're working on
and then this is a brick structure which
many of the brick structures two-story
houses and south actually sit
considerably taller than the wood frame
structures um
by good even for the second floor ticket
is almost a foot higher than any of
those wood trained houses in south texas
and then the house that's on the corner
um is a true game roll facing north and
south and getting elongated dormer with
another third floor going up top
so when i was designing this i felt it
was important for us to have these
dormers
located
away from the front of the house so i'm
essentially the face of this warmer is
22 feet
back
from the face of the porch so it does
sit back considerably from
the house and i think when you look at
this elevation
it doesn't really tell a true story
because
because it's to see
um
you know
there are plenty of houses that have
been built
recently that i think
i would question how tall they are but
there are
being that we can allow this roofline to
run in front of the stormer
it reads as a door there are plenty of
times i've seen
that portion of truth not
accomplished and you just sit next to a
shooting full of finals
for three stories right so i think that
that interruption is a really important
element that needs to stay
um to make this commitment successful
so
where we are is that
this roof in itself
if i didn't have it warmers is 66
of the volume of the space below so it
takes me over that volume
are these two dormers and one of them
essentially is allowing us that height
for our stair
floor
and the other ones giving us a little
bit more effect
in this bedroom as well as
window
so again i think from the street and i
try to do a quick sketch here
just to emphasize how far back this is
i really think
you're never going to perceive that
dormer
from the streets because hey it sits
back there's certainly vegetation and
trees and sidewalk trees and all those
kinds of things that are fairly mature
on the street that begin to add some
layers of information i think in front
of this house it's a great street front
porches
and i'd say a really nice variation in
groove states and uh and heights so
i thought the contextual uh diagram
would be an important thing it's very
helpful very helpful to say that i'm
actually
grateful that kathy brought this up
because that contextual diagram oh yeah
sorry you have to do today but it is
extremely helpful right because it's
actually that's house to the right is
actually what that house looks like
currently so it's showing the change
and
that's very helpful i appreciate that
and i believe like i say i think i'm
only about three feet higher than this
and
this guy down here i think is either
people who are gonna or maybe
obviously i wasn't going over their
house
and when you look at the straight on
hardline drawings it's misleading so it
is yeah it is so this is very helpful
that's why actually in this particular
drawing i left the corners off because i
really wanted from elevation comparison
yeah so i wasn't trying to be deceiving
i just know because you can see how
deceiving it is
yeah you can't yeah
yeah no i think it's it's extremely
helpful
you know and
we're trying to add some newness with
some new textures
that are
picking up another piece here on the bay
to get some continuity and there's also
a small garage we've designed this site
that is also picking up some of that
material
so i think it's it's really going to
vary some energy on the property and
give them looking forward to staying
back
interesting all right
can i ask a random question that does
not deal with the height of this house
why aren't they putting in another
bathroom
why aren't they putting in a bathroom on
the third floor we thought about it
sorry just from a kid perspective i just
thought that was
usually happening
and it's
too much
is there anybody in the audience that is
for against this case
no thank you
i see no indication of that um
any further questions or comments
ryan
i think you always do your clients say
um a wonderful service by your
presentations thank you
and thank you i apologize but i don't
and thank you for doing that
yeah yeah that's very helpful because i
was concerned about the massing so we
just had to point it out but at least he
put it in perspective
yeah and it helps it helps me quite a
bit
all right uh with that
uh if there's no additional commentary
from the uh members of the board kathy
will you give us the findings of fact
conclusions law on this matter
yes
three all right the findings in fact the
decision of the board for application
number bcap-22-3
for property located at 755 vernon 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 of variance in mexico section 12 26
11 c have been met any variants from
mexico section
12 5209 are sick zoning to allow a
second and third floor addition
shall be granted
in accordance with the site plan
and substantial conformance with the
renderings and plans submitted to the
board
after review of the plans in
consideration of the application
evidence and testimony and
recommendation from the architecture
review board the board finds that a
certificate of appropriateness should be
issued as well
all right
thank you
mr foster no problem with that rendition
okay
um
members of the board anybody have any uh
additions or modifications to that
rendering of the findings of and
conclusions of law if not i'd entertain
a motion to approve the findings of fact
and conclusions as well
so moved thank you second
second
okay they second seconded it
and uh with that uh kathy please call
the role mr schick
yes
mrs doran yes mr levine yes chairman
bihar i also vote yes the matter is
approved thank you very much for the
helpful drawings and the extra work that
that took i'm sure
the next case i'm going to uh suggest
that we may take about a three or four
minute break here but the next case is
case b z ap 22-4 involving 2775 elm so
mr alexander if you want to get yourself
situated up there we'll be right back
taking the two-minute break
i said i said two minutes that wasn't a
joke
all right
the next case
under new business is
application number bzap 22-4 involving
2775 elm
the applicant is gary alexander and the
owners are doug and barbara davis the
applicant is requesting a recommendation
to the board of zoning and planning for
architectural review and approval and a
certificate of appropriateness
for an addition of a screened porch at
the rear of the property mr alexander
would you raise your right hand do you
swear affirm that any testimony you give
this evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do
thank you very much kathy please
this is an irregular kind of pie shaped
lot which is on a curb street the lot is
126 feet wide at the front and narrows
to 51 feet wide at the rear
the fact that the house is centered on
the lot and the property line runs
closer to the structure at the back
portion of the lot
the existing structure steps in along
the east
side of the home the proposed screen
porch will also step in however the
southeast portion of the porch would
encroach
up to two feet at the back corner
please note that one of the maps
on one of the maps that appears that the
neighbor's driveway is on the
exists on this lot it crosses that
property line
that is simply not the case and the
architect has confirmed his and has
provided his hand
hardline site plan based on the survey
of the property i would also like to
point out that the proposed screen porch
is not typical in that it has a mostly
solid wall along the west property line
with two screen windows at the top of
the wall the architecture review board
has provided a positive recommendation
for a certificate of appropriateness
with the condition that there be two
additional windows i would defer
those details to karen
okay
karen
um
this application was recommended in the
positive to this board with some changes
just so the interior we don't need to
get into this but the interior of the
space um
felt good when you're inside did it okay
um yes did get a positive
recommendation with conditions that were
set for architecture
architectural changes by the
architecture
okay
all right
mr alexander why don't you tell us a
little bit about why you did what you
did and what were your at being asked to
approve
well this is a
relatively modest project it's a
one-story screening poor tradition to
the back of the house
we've located work it where we have so
it has direct access current family room
but also retains
natural light from the south that the
center part of the house receives so
trying to maintain the connection that
the house has to the yard the backyard
is really very very nice it's really the
design is derivative of the character of
the back of the house the openings match
the existing openings along the back
roof lines match
details materials will match so there
there that's a pretty good indication of
what the structure is going to be like
and you can see the opening pattern of
the existing family room
has continued across the back
um
the
and the overhangs which i know are
important in terms of the architecture
review here are one of the features that
projects into the setback that differs a
little bit from from what your code
permits
um we're only requesting this to the
footprints of the structure steps in
a foot and a half
and only in that corner
the roof projects in
a little bit more the roof is into that
setback in that location about four feet
three a little over four feet three
inches but we're matching the overhangs
of the existing house so that's the
reason for that
i think the hardship here is clearly the
shape of the lot
had had the property lined in parallel
to the side of the house we never we
wouldn't have this issue we've actually
the porch is actually six feet in
from the edge of the current garage so
it's already moved in from the outer
edge of the house
i think that the porch will have almost
no impact on the neighboring property
there's a six-foot privacy fence that
separates the properties the porch is
located between the current house
and the garage
there's not a lot of wall that will be
visible and that wall that you will see
over the privacy fence which did have
two narrow screens will now have four
narrow screens as a result of the
architectural review board's uh request
suggestion
all right i mean
it is a sort of it's a
pie shaped
any uh have you heard any um
comment from the neighbor to the left
here in this photograph
no and i haven't and i don't know if the
davis is there they're out of town this
time of year i don't know if they've
talked to their neighbors okay
but i don't know if it's in here but
there's a
picture so you can kind of see the
relationship of the two
right there yeah that's pretty good not
it's really not going to affect no
anybody
no and even the site
makes it makes it
puts it in a place that's not really
too relevant to the other house
you know
the fact it creates
actually a little bit more of a barrier
from the this backyard to that backyard
a little more privacy a little more
privacy yeah
[Music]
okay
is there anyone that is here argue about
this case or one way or the other
there's only one person in the audience
and i take it you're not here for that
matter
are you highly favorite okay
is it a plant of yours gary yeah
all right um
any
questions i mean there's not really a
lot of
mystery here
it's it's
a foot and a half outside and
if it were a square lot it would be no
problem at all i'm calling it two feet
based on it's what eleven and a half one
foot eleven and a half inches yeah okay
close enough right
all right
no if there's no additional questions i
think we get to entertain findings of
fact conclusions of law
the findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number bzap 22-4
for property located at 2775
elm avenue upon consideration of the
application proposed variance 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 in a two-foot variance from mexico
section 1252.09
r6 zoning to allow a screened porch
addition at the rear of the principal
structure shall be granted based on the
unique shape of the lot
okay
with that
uh should i add the certificate yeah
yeah let's add it too and uh
so i'll be
approved in substantial conformance with
the rendering submitted to the board
and in accordance with the
recommendation from the architecture
review board for approval of a
certificate of appropriateness okay
any
problem with the rendering of finding a
fat inclusion law thank you
members of the board any comments or
questions if not i'd entertain a motion
to approve the finding conclusions of
law
thank you second
second thank you
kathy please call the role mr levine yes
miss dorn yes mr shake yes chairman
behold
i also yes the applications granted and
i wanted to point out being that the
architects review board's recommendation
included the two additional windows that
would still be a part of this i'd like
to clarify that yeah i think you
acknowledge that yeah we're fine and we
appreciate your flexibility on these
issues so thank you and this is a nice
project thank you all thank you thank
you
[Music]
all right
the
last
we really wanted to give the doug as
much grief as we can but there was just
no reason
the last case on the
new business docket is is appeal
number not a not a b zap number but an
appeal
21-3
the subject
address is 18 north ashborne
the applicant is dr joseph ridgeway the
applicant's address is 30 north
ashbourne which i assume is contiguous
the applicant is appealing decision of
the city staff of guard defense permit
application
f-21-82
so
there were some
come on up there and first thing we'll
do is swear you in
uh do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give this evening will be
the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do okay
now
the
there were several emails transpiring
between you and and the city attorney
today which i was a party to
the issue here is um the city has raised
and i know kathy do you want to
make the uh
city's position known mr official
happened to tell me what he believes it
should be
uh
this was a fence permit that was
submitted and i issued last year on
another property right on yes on another
property
and
to be built according according to code
and it was constructed
and
the
uh well to go through the process you
issued a permit
to allow them to build a fence okay
they came in with their plans of
specification hold on we've got to get
the case
situated correctly here they apply for a
fence permit and they indicate that they
will build the fence in accordance with
code and i also verify the location and
the height to make sure that that also
meets code and issue the permit
the fence then gets constructed
and it should be constructed in
accordance with code okay
uh the applicant reached out to me
questioning that the appellant here
appellant reached out to me questioning
the design of the fence
and
i
i have gone out to review fences that
are questionable because the codes state
that the finished side faces the
neighboring property
part of that rule is to encourage board
on board style fences
so in my mind when i look at this fence
which it was a custom built fence
it's it's unique
and
i find it to be a nice fence and it does
appear
different on both sides but i want to
point out that the fence at the top
unfortunately i'm sorry this is turned
are these pictures of actual the actual
fence actual fence is the top picture
even though it's sideways the bottom
okay
yeah i want to stop this for a second
okay
i'm not sure
that we're to the point of looking at
the facts of the case yet okay we have
to determine that the appeal is an
appropriate appeal
one way or the other here okay and then
we can look at the facts of the case
depending on how we ultimately decide
so
the the go ahead so but go through the
process so
the the dr ridgeway calls you and says i
don't think this is right right you go
out and look at it you make your
determination you are had already made a
determination when you issued the permit
that you believed it was going to be
built to code and that the right side
was facing the right side whatever side
that is and i don't know what that is
i'm not really concerned with that at
this moment so being he did not agree
with
my decision that this defense meets code
my only alternative was to recommend
that he apply for an appeal to the
zoning board okay which is where i
typically take cases if there's a
conflict in in a decision that i make
sure okay can i clarify and then hold on
hold on so then you did
tell him
uh that he could file an appeal
yeah and and then he did in fact come
and file an appeal correct
and he did pay i mean you have to pay
something violent appeal correct a
filing fee 279 so he he went through the
proper imaginations the appellant did in
order to file the appeal correct okay so
then
uh and and those those facts in terms of
process or do you agree with those facts
pretty much or largely agree with them
don't don't slight
um comment i make was
first obviously um
i agree
no no i swarm in yeah there should
should in fact be offense of course and
there's no problem with a permit having
been issued
um
i don't
my understanding was that you had not
seen
photos of or anything like that of the
fence until after
it was created and that you were
presuming it would be
done in accordance with code well they
agreed to build it according to code and
and photos of the style offense are not
required
of course okay so your presumption was
it would be met with code and my
question would be well if
that's later baited once construction
started you know i'm assuming i've gone
to the right process because i don't
didn't know of any other process it was
not directed otherwise right but but i
just want to make it clear that um
there isn't any other process right so
you've now taken advantage of the only
process available okay and the question
the question before the board is
there is some kind of a time limitation
on filing appeals in the in the city
code i believe it's 10 days 10 days from
what date is the question
and it's 10 days from
one would presume we have a lot of
lawyers here i'm glad to see tonight
because the the issue would be 10 days
from a date that
the
neighbor became aware of the
situation or the plans right or the
approval unless i misread mark sliver
that's not what he said what do you say
he said from issuance of the program
yeah because because the only
the only
written
action taken by the city was the
issuance of the permit there was no
subsequent written permission written a
rendition of decision making
so
the
but permits are issued for things like
fences or or
sidewalks or
they don't
they don't notify neighbors of the
graining of a permit
it's a very odd conclusion
so
so it puts the
the
now on the other hand the city gets
i'm
guessing hundreds of requests for
permits every year
i've had eight since january eight since
january but just expenses so how about
oh eight fences but i'm not just worried
about fences because i think any rules
that we're talking about here have to
apply to any
significant change that could affect the
the adjoining neighbor
right i mean that's what we're talking
about
we talked about it's possible
though i've never seen you do it yet
that you could make a mistake on a on a
decision about a permit
i've never seen you make a mistake in
all these years but you could make a
mistake or your successor could make a
mistake so we're creating
rules here for
ongoing enterprises right so
the i think the issue is
how does
dr ridgeway
have any means
of
objecting to a decision by the zoning
officer
if he doesn't have notice
of the decision of the zoning officer
and what is the meaning of a 10-day
limitation
when
the beginning of the of the limitation
is a date that nobody is aware of
not nobody in the general public is
aware now if there was some sort of a
process that says we're issuing permits
we're notifying the adjoining neighbors
that a permit has been issued you now
have 10 days to appeal they can go on
the website look at the
permit application they could look at
they could come they could go to the
site they could look at the site right
but
but there's we we have some and what is
the statute how does the statute read
that that i think was quoted by mark
today any fence or wall erected along
the front setback line side or rear
property line must have been finished
and not the structural side facing the
adjacent property or stream
okay
all right so
i don't even know what the facts of this
case are i don't know which side faces
what i don't know what the face of it is
so i don't want to know about the fact
yet
i don't think the board needs to know
about the facts yet we need to decide
is is this an appropriate appeal
to be considered or is he out of rule
and because he didn't file it within 10
days of the issuance of the permit
that he has no
uh
capability legally we have to we have to
reject the appeal as a board or accept
the appeal as a board based upon whether
the appeal was timely filed
attorney has given a legal opinion
telling us what the law is
okay are we at liberty to oh sure
interpret that sure we're at liberty to
do anything we wish
you know
the the city attorney cannot call the
zoning office and say
you may not accept this
appeal i mean let's just as an example
there's a common please court case i
lose
i have 30 days as you know to appeal
i can file the appeal on the 35th day
the clerk has to take my appeal
now the court will then send me a notice
as i have
learned in the past
and they will say
your appeal is outside we we know the
date the judge filed the final judgment
entry your appeal is filed too late we
dismiss your appeal out of hand the
court of appeals could dismiss that
appeal
but the clerk of courts cannot say hey
you're too late buddy we can't we're not
going to accept your appeal i think the
clerk's job is to take anything that's
filed time stamp it
deliver it to the court in this case
we're the tribunal
and in this case so when i called mark
today and said because i read his email
saying return the filing fee and and end
this uh appeal because it's an
inappropriate appeal it's out of it's
out of a rule
but i called him and i said
i don't think you can
advise the zoning board that they can't
take a filing
are they the arbiters then of whether
this is an appropriate appeal or not
i don't think they are
so as a result
they
took the appeal
they notified dr ridgeway he's here as a
result
and now
it's not cathy or the zoning
board's decision to make it's our
decision to make mark official
rendered his opinion to
he advises city council he advises us
he's a city attorney
it's his opinion
you and i both have advised many clients
that have not taken our advice
[Laughter]
in the past
but
but what's that
yeah we have four attorneys tonight i
mean i think it's an absolutely perfect
i've been playing attorney all week with
this and you've been playing attorney
all weekend too
i mean i'd actually like to raise an
issue that hasn't been brought up here
you know and
you know it's from the facts okay so
this sense starts to go up in october
their permits raised the current issued
in september early september right okay
so you know three or four weeks go by
before even anything happens with this
sense
um the fence
goes up
um
frankly i you know i go away to a
football game
and come back
the following day and these all have
been altered a lot okay so my first
notice
of anything
contrary to the code
occurred on october 24th
several weeks weeks after the permit was
issued so you know in this situation how
much work starts within 10 days of a
permit probably very little except for
very few so how would anybody ever be
able to
see something that started to be
constructed
contrary to code how would they ever
have any recourse whatsoever
if if um if not then so my call to kathy
was on the 25th
um
she had not seen photos
she said she would go at the fence i
think she was given some photos at that
point the code enforcement officer
provided them to me okay but after the
25th
and um
so i waited for a decision
hopefully written didn't get one
i don't think it's an obligation in the
code we talked on the phone you're
talking i'm not saying you didn't
provide the decision i'm saying i
thought maybe we had i mean i talked to
so many people every day i went through
my emails because i thought surely
there's an email with this exchange of
what was happening over there i don't
think you're obligated to buy the
current code to provide a written
decision no he's not i'm not suggesting
that you were
generally anyway looked of your of your
obligation communicated but i couldn't
have any
right and then you told me to appeal to
this board which i the first actually i
made the first
possible deadline there was no december
meeting except for the november meeting
right um
so i made my first
deadline of a possible appeal
um it fell through the cracks so it
missed january
for some i don't know glitch but it made
it to
this month
and so i mean i don't know how any
homeowner would ever have a recourse if
you started with the permit date with 10
days right you would have no indication
whatsoever
ever
you just have to assume that everything
was done you'd have to assume everything
was going to go forward and
unless you know you had some sort of
psychic knowledge
that there was going to be a violation i
would not be able to have any recourse
whatsoever i don't know of any other
right
let me let me also look at this from the
flip side the your neighbor's
perspective on this thing wouldn't it be
better
for the applicant who wants to build the
fence
to know that there's an objection and
that it has been ruled upon by bzap
before they build the actual fence
because if
the appeal is successful let's just say
and it's not only this situation i'm
talking about i'm talking pretty much
generally any situation
if the proper appeals were filed and it
were it were found that it that the that
the city staff okayed a fence that was
that does not meet code
then they'd have to pull that fence up
out of the ground and it's probably more
expensive to pull the fence out of the
ground it is to build a diagonal thing
in the first place right and it could be
any number of other things that you'd be
granting
a a permit for now
so there's advantages
to both sides to doing this a different
way than than we're being confronted
with here
but
the
and perhaps the most important side the
side that i know the least about is
how many permit applications does the
city get a year
and what kind of a burden would it be on
the city to have to notify all
contiguous land owners of every permit
that they're granting so that that
person would have 10 days to appeal
we would be putting a significant burden
on the city
you can't do it you you couldn't do it
with the personnel that you currently
have i mean because because they have
the option to file a variance or if they
build it according to code
[Music]
yeah it's the decision as to whether it
meets code or not is is the decision
that needs to be
that we're talking about whether it
should be an appealable issue or not so
what we're here today to determine if if
we take the appeal is whether or not it
was built to code no well okay well
it's not clear to me what an appeal
means even if it's yeah
and an appeal means that in other words
the city
made a move they granted a permit this
is an appeal that's that says that was
inappropriate
and i want the city to
revoke the permit that's what the appeal
not really my appeal is to kathy's
decision of
my verbal request to determine whether
it meets code so to me
this is about whether or not it meets
code i understand ultimately that's the
issue right but but
but what what i'm saying is
that the issue before us tonight is
you know do do we now
well the the as the city attorney
indicated today the city's position
is
that this appeal was not timely filed
and it's not the appropriate
subject of an appeal
because it's
not a decision of an adequate level of
importance
to merit a process of notification
a appeal time
consideration by b zap
possible
appeal of the visa decision to the
common police court of franklin county
these otherwise these little tiny
permits that are granted
would become a monstrosity and it's just
not academically or administratively
probably not academically
administratively
feasible to do this on these kinds of
smaller issues now
if you're
the doctor it might not be that small an
issue or if that the fence has to be
pulled out of the ground it's not that
small an issue to the owner of the fence
either so not all of these permits
are small issues right
but many of them are what are permits
granted for as an example give me an
idea give the board an idea of how many
every single project has to have
permanent air conditioning heating
electric fence site development windows
driveways sidewalks patios
you know
solar panels
farming things that don't require
variances in many many cases correct
well i think don't we consider patio
variances but
but we we we see every application that
requires a variance
that's not the issue here the issue is
if it
doesn't need a variance
but it just needs to be built to code
they won't
grant a permit if there's no variance
required but they want to build
something that's not to code
see i i guess i have a question then so
think about this okay so think of the
patios we do that we have to that are
not to code they they give us a
rendering of it before it's built so we
can determine if it's to code or not
you know patio probably costs the same
as a fence these days so
if we're talking an extensive fence
how do we determine if it's within code
that's my job
so
do they give a rendering if the patio is
submitted and i determined it meets code
you don't even see it no but i mean do
they give a rendering of each fence yes
i have to have well no no but it's the
requirement is that the finished site
faces the neighbor and that's typically
like you have a panel you know you can
put that panel one way but this is a
custom fence
you know had i gone out there and found
that this that it was you know a
backwards panel or something that i
really did find offensive then i would
have probably sent a letter to that
owner stating that they have to modify
the fence or seek a variance
and that would give
dr ridgeway an opportunity to attend
that meeting and sure the code does
state
that one of the functions of this board
is to
take appeals or to
oh
how did i say how is it let's read that
code section i think we should read that
actual code section that was in mark's
letter today do you do you have
no actions 1226.18.
1226.18 i believe that's the appeals
section
i believe that's what i recall as well
uh
1220.02l
was that the one that you had that's
when i wrote this actually this came
from me okay um
according to bexley city codified oregon
1220.02
the bcap shall have the following powers
and duties under the provisions of the
zoning ordinance l to hear and decide
appeals
from and
fro to sorry to hear and decide appeals
from and to review orders decisions or
determinations made by the zoning
officer
to here and just there it is l
to hear and decide appeals from
and to review orders decisions or
determinations made by the zoning
officer or the architectural review
board
so here we are
the appeal was filed there's no question
about that this is an appeal
the question is what is what does it
take to invoke our jurisdiction
yeah that's right and there you go made
a decision or determination
and therefore
what was the appeal timeline that's why
i fired
this gets to a basic function and never
got a written order it was 10
it's ten days from written order of that
decision or determination he didn't make
a written order therefore ten days never
started i was pretty darn timely anyway
as timely as possibly i could have been
so i don't see how that could
you can't just go back and say 10 days
from the permit nobody could ever use
this
nobody would ever have any recourse if
somebody violates code right in their
face
can we see the 10-day provision from the
ordinance
all right
oh it's right if if you go to
12 26.18 it's right there it says
within 10 days of the date of the
written decision of the architectural
review board or the zoning officer or
other administrative official
in their interpretation of the
provisions of the zoning codes
so for example if she would have put
something in writing on november 10th i
would have had until november 20th right
that never occurred i was actually
hoping for it so that i would be able to
work the peel off of that rather than
present to novo but i'm fine with
presenting de novo on on this fence so
let's let's read this to the board of
zoning and planting shall have the power
to hear and decide appeals from a
decision of the zoning officer
or the architectural review board which
have been duly filed with the zoning
officer
so that must mean architectural review
board which have been doing files
within 10 days of the date of the
written decision of the architectural
review board
or the zoning officer or other
administrative official in the
interpretation of the provisions of this
zoning code the board may in conducting
its hearing reverse affirm
or modify the order
require
decision or determination appealed
the decision of b's app shall be the
subject of appeal to city council as
provided in 1226.19
so there's the ten days
from the date of the written decision so
in this case
i think mark official the city
attorney's argument is that the issuance
of the permit is the written decision
that made no sense to me and i've
written that up i understand
on the other hand couldn't this
and i would have ordinarily read to
suggest that you're required to
render a written decision anytime you're
asked
to get
to determine whether the code's been
complied with
which is every single application for a
permit that's that's actually not true
no no that's not true
when kathy issues a permit she's not
saying it
there's nothing there to say that it's
built in compliance well within the
application
the applicant checks a box that they
agree to these the codes for that fence
i get that but what if they don't what
if they then i would take that and i
would send them a note notice a
violation
or have them file either either modify
the fence
to remove the fence or file a variant by
the way is that how the house on south
columbia got on
back on the agenda because the roof you
know the 15-foot issue of the roof
did you issue a violation notice you
know the big white house
oh no yeah yeah i don't know how that
got back on there that was a that was a
request for reconsideration
i believe
which has to come from a board boardman
that came from me but you know what
seems to me is that
the position that mark's taking and
you're taking leaves people without a
remedy
and fences i think are something that i
mean you share with a neighbor it's on
the property line
i mean ideally everyone should consult
their neighbors before they do it but
and and if it's
and if it's my opinion
you know as to whether it meets code you
know i try to be fairly consistent and
and
you know
i did not find the fence
to be defensive
and that's completely beside the point
it is no one's questioning no it's right
right right so in my mind
if it meets code
is that still
appealable well if you i mean if you
literally read this if you you write a
letter saying okay
your request i made an inspection it's
my opinion that this meets code so so
this is how i read it too so at this
point we've got a just my verb
uh opinion of
defense
okay
right you didn't make any other one
and that's i'm not saying that you're
i'm not don't know whether that
obligates you to or not but you the fact
is you didn't therefore ten day this ten
day
yeah what do you mean
well if you choose not to then there
isn't one right it would never commence
therefore it doesn't exist you know in
my situation i use the first possible
opportunity
to at least meet the deadline for this
this this meeting right constructiveness
but if i had
been given
a written decision i assure you i would
have had had the appeal done within 10
days okay
so i mean where does that work i want a
remedy to this okay
so
let's
think about
this if we
and we'll have to vote on this
if we believe the appeal is
inappropriately filed
then
we're done here tonight we don't care
what the fence looks like and we're not
even going to look at the facts of the
case all right
if
we decide that
the 10-day
time frame has not really even
begun because there's no written
opinion
to appeal from
then
we're going to
start a whole new
avenue
of work for the city zoning department
here that we need to we need to get
ourselves to a point where
uh
this kind of an issue can be dealt with
in a way that's fair to all the
residents
kathy would that be an overwhelming
amount of additional work for you
i mean how often do people call it you
can't get ready to say you know i don't
like the way this is done i don't think
it meets code does that happen every day
no it doesn't
but
doing it that way also is is not fair if
it takes a call from somebody who sees
the fence right because to be fair to
this lady that built the fence if it's
not the code let's just change the
design and put up one up that is and and
i'm not going to pay to have it built
deconstructed
reconstructed my god that's not fair to
the person who's building the fence
either i mean
i mean they're the ones who are
obligated to build it to
code so if they don't build the code you
don't feel so badly telling them you got
to pull this down because you had to do
that before you write a letter you're in
violation of the code you're going to
have to rectify this problem or we'll
take further action
right
i have another question is is standing a
relevant consideration here too i mean
are we to possibly infer from this
that
since dr ridgway was not the applicant
that possibly he doesn't have appeal
rights
or do you think only the applicant has
appealed yes well
here's how i would respond to that
situation
let me let me suggest this to you we
have rules about standing here that if
you live in south bexley you can't
complain about a telephone booth that's
being built in north mexico okay because
you don't have standing you don't live
close enough by to to be affected by it
so we do have rules about standing
i
well he's an adjacent property yeah i'm
the only actual
i mean i conversely affected party i
don't think you're talking about that
yeah you're suggested
i'm suggesting whether legally this is
the the
mechanism that the code intended for you
to present your your
well
but and i asked if the if the city
grants the permit and says we believe
this is built to code or the design
meets code the city is mandated at the
time of the issue
okay so
i've named that question as to how the
process works
i come to you i want to build a fence
it's going to be on what do i have to
tell you to do that i you submit a site
plan and i verify the location of the
fence meet its code and and the
information within the application at
the height of the fence meets code and
that they check the box that that has
includes all of the criteria that they
are going to follow that and and you
don't make a determination whether the
design of the fence meets code
because you don't know what the design
of the fence is at that point why don't
you force them to tell you what the
design of the fence is
perhaps we could add that into the
application there we go
when someone applies for a fence well
they'll tell me it's wood or they'll
tell me i want to make sure it's not
they'll tell you they have to write it
down that's the question right they'll
indicate it's a wood fence and they'll
show me the location and they'll tell me
the height but they don't tell you about
the design no
this is bad public policy
to cut somebody out to
constructive
notice doesn't exist here that's
the law determines that he had actual
notice on october 14th
he took fourth but yeah
sorry
lawyer another math petition um
and i'm doing the most dangerous thing
over here being a transactional lawyer
looking at key sites
um
i i think that
if we were to vote on this and we have
the authority to i'm going to go right
out and say that i think that his notice
was when was when the fence was directed
we arrived home from the game that day
because we provided no other mechanism
for the city to give for these permits
for individuals to do this we provide
notice to our neighbors when we put up
signs when it's an actual variance
but in this situation
um he does appear to have standing he's
an adjacent property owner um that's
provided standing for many of our other
conversations that we've had
i think that's for sure
um but here what just does not sit right
in this bad public policy is
requiring notice that it doesn't even
define what type of notice is required
within 10 days of the determination of
an administrative officer i
just i can't square the two comfortably
right well i think the city would be in
a better position if we did
require
um
some written
like if there is a
question such as this coming up where
kathy has to go review it she can have a
document that she submits and i think it
protects the city a little bit more to
have that in place obviously
kind of moot in this situation
um
but
i mean reading
and reading what we have to go by
it's really i mean
it's problematic it's very problematic
yeah so
let me ask you this
if the
question is called
and the question has nothing to do with
this fence or what it looks like right i
don't care what it looks like and the
question is shall we accept this appeal
as being timely filed before the board
then we need to take that vote and see
where we stand on that issue
we're upon
we're going to have to
notify the owner
of the appeal and this appeal is going
to be heard where we're going to
actually look at facts and details
in the next or the one or the next
couple meetings right that's what that's
what would happen we won't make a
decision tonight under any circumstances
about the fence about the fence yeah
it's going to be
we'd have to give due process i think to
the owner of the property
as well as the surrounding neighbors and
i know dr ridge may be one
neighbor there might be another neighbor
there i don't know what the layout of
the property i mean the whole
neighborhood did get this was on the
agenda in time for notice to be provided
no no but because of these circumstances
that are so strange i would completely
agree that
if i were anybody but myself i would
want
more notice again yeah i think that's i
i have no objection to i think that's
fair yeah thank you
i'm tired
i i think i think what we would
suggest here tonight that's why i didn't
really want to hear too many facts about
the defense i think our decision tonight
has to be procedural
and then depending on which way the vote
goes
if we vote not to take this appeal
i think what is dr ridgeway's
alternative i think he goes to the
common police court and files a lot of
remedy
yeah sounds like a pretty unsatisfactory
alternative it does to me too yeah but
to go to dr ridgeway into the city i'm
sorry yeah alright exactly yeah yeah
exactly
i'm sorry what would you say i said
to both parties to the city and to dr
ridgeway yeah it's not an attractive
alternative to either side yeah for the
other property owner i mean or the other
property owner for that matter right
all right so i think we should come to a
head here and and
uh
the the proposition before
the board tonight
is
with
the facts as they've been
the procedural facts as they've been
indicated to us by both the city and the
appellant
we've heard the fact they're pretty much
in agreement as to what the facts are i
think i i don't hear a lot of discord
between the city and dr ridgway
so i think the issue is
is this
the appropriate
subject of an appeal
or is it not vote yes if you think it is
the appropriate subject of an appeal
vote no if you do not keeping in mind
that the city attorney
has opined
to us that he does not believe it is the
appropriate subject of an appeal
and that was an advisement that was an
advice advice he rendered today in a
letter form was it based on the statute
we just looked at it was based on on the
fact that there's no decision from which
to appeal
and therefore you can't appeal it it's
it's too low level a decision
to merit a decision in writing from a
city zoning officer which would make it
the subject of an appeal i believe that
is you you agree that's what mark was
saying today or do you think there's
more to it than that
i read mark's letter to say that the
10-day clock starts with the issuance of
the permit that's why which did not make
sense to me yeah which i also read like
there could easily be and likely is more
than ten days between the department
issuing an offense being built oh for
sure getting a couple of supply chain
issues
yeah
okay
so
with that in mind
my gut tells me that
the appeal that's referred to here is
the applicant
for the permit
not the
the applicant for the permit explain
that to me a little bit
the city denies a permit but they didn't
deny it they granted it no i'm saying i
said it yeah you know what okay does
this ordinance exist
except i just don't know how does a
citizen get before this board
or do we just say
forget it just go to court you know hire
a lawyer
so i think the answer is that's right no
it doesn't but i i think your question
if the city determines
this application for a permit
is inappropriate
i mean have you ever told people no you
can't have a permit
for what you come to us
applying for if it didn't meet code okay
so have you ever done that
okay so people come to you and you say
no it doesn't meet codes no
so when you say no to them you do it in
writing
i just simply
when you don't approve the application
that person is aware of your decision on
the day you tell them and they have 10
days to make it to make an appeal and
with this new program yeah
now
it's only when they grant one
that
that person was aware of the granting of
that
permit on the day it was granted but
dr ridgeway wasn't
yeah so that's why i that's why i'm
asking the question yeah it's the only
interpretation that makes sense that's
why i think that that question doesn't
doesn't really
pose a problem
i don't think
because i think both sides have the
right to appeal
the person right the person who grants
you the the person who was uh either
denied a permit has the right to appeal
or the person who is granted a permit
the neighbor
should have a right to appeal
and generally that's how how the code
works yes right if they filed a variance
you certainly would have standing
because he lives next door sure nobody
who's going to file a very if that's
true if they were to file a variance for
a
to to go
to go against code i'd be here then sure
okay and you were steve noticed as would
anybody within 25 feet of or 25 feet of
the house right or is it more than 25
feet listen
to your question then what happens then
we set the matter for hearing
chair real quick just please clarify
this for me is
the city attorney officials is his
opinions are they mandatory or just
persuasive
they're persuasive okay they they are i
didn't hear they mandatory is that your
question now their their advice
okay so thinking about this then
thank you
as far as
issuing permits so if a permit is not
issued they have
recourse they do
if a permit is issued
the neighbors don't even know about it
no recourse
right
except civil litigation i mean that's
the same case with garages if karen and
i approve a garage the neighbors
building a garage and they don't notify
the neighbors they're building a garage
she makes sure that meets the design
code i make sure it meets the zoning
code
why would we want to burden ourselves
with notification to everybody on
something that needs code
garages go through architecture review
board
you know because there's nothing because
you have to make room for the
possibility that
you know that
you're wrong i mean i'm not saying you
are but well i have to be held
accountable and the applicant also has
to be held accountable the point is that
if if there's a disagreement there has
to be a remedy for the person who
disagrees with you
correct and that's this board
that's what that says
i think yes
yeah it seems like what we're if we take
a vote tonight it's
would it be ceremonious or
okay no it's going to be procedural okay
it's going to be yes we accept this
appeal because the city attorney
has
taken the position for the city and
we're we're not the city here we're
aboard right the city makes
recommendations they they give us
information
they take positions in columbus the city
would actually take a position we
recommend approval of this variance
request right
and then we would vote
we agree with you or we don't agree with
you in this case the city attorney is
saying
we
the city doesn't want to be burdened
with having to write written decisions
about every tiny little
permit that were requested every single
year
and you're putting an undue burden on us
and therefore this is not this was not
an and
decision that merited written
determination and therefore is not the
appropriate subject of an appeal because
it doesn't merit a written decision
well i think it makes perfect sense to
begin a procedural process of allowing
this appeal to be heard
and then ultimately getting down to
the main question of is that fence
compliant
yeah and and i think that it probably
ultimately gets down to let's
look at the statutes that exist and
maybe we need to rectify how this whole
process works can we send can we send
that notice to council right now
oh it will go to council
is you talk about overburdening city
staff yeah
but
i feel like what the way we're heading
is just
shifting that burden to us
and you know every neighbor who's upset
with a code interpretation
can
take the position that well i just found
out about it i'm going to file and get
before visa okay so i think that that
what
legislatively needs to be done
is
they need to ask more questions about
whether
what so they can make determinations of
a greater in greater detail
as uh
has been suggested they should get a
copy of what the
fence is going to look like before they
grant the program that would be very
simple that would be simple that
wouldn't add any burden to your job
yeah i know i understand but
a good example of us already doing what
you're suggesting are garages
they don't need a variance they come to
me with full drawings
already no neighbor sees it
and it encourages them what if they
build something that said variants from
the drawings that you approved well then
we have recourse because they
have a violation what you're suggesting
i think and i think you're correct is
that they need to also even for an
offense they need to submit drawings so
we have something to compare it to in
this case it was just a verbal yeah
we're gonna do it to code but for
garages i have to have a full set of
drawings even though the even though the
neighbor
is not going to need to review it or be
notified
because i'm the one then determines that
it's up to that it's code but i have but
you give medication you also give those
drawings to kathy and she determines
whether they're
going to build this in the right place
on the line she does that first yeah
well she does it first and i get calls
all the time saying i don't need to be
notified
uh-huh
well it meets code and i think i think
i don't want to speak for kathy but i am
actually not that concerned about
overwhelming staff and board because i
think this is just one of those learning
processes and not my hunch is that we're
going to end up with a code revision in
a good way out of this
application revision which would be
something i think
or both or both that needs to change
yeah well
karen just said to me in 23 years she's
never had anybody with the process that
it was outlined with garage she's never
had anybody appeal she's never had a
neighbor appeal and that demonstrates
that this process with regards to
submitting drawings submitting um is
that works that's so i think we're we're
creating a little bit of a straw man
here
yeah
my concern my concern here is that
offense is that a fence is quite
possibly the most
intimate thing that your neighbor has
impact over your own property because it
runs directly across your property line
and i deal with it with my neighbors i
mean they're wonderful people but like
they were missing a couple slats and
stuff
and it was just like
mix it oh yeah please fix it so i
completely sympathize with you doctor i
really do and i think that this is an
issue of notice
and
i hate that ordinance and if i litigated
i'd be handing you against my ethics i'd
be handing you my part my business card
outside the parking lot like an
ambulance chaser because i think you
have something
here that is very relevant and if we
don't address it it's going to it could
impact our community and we can then
we'll continue to live with bad policy
that's my opinion sorry for coming out
of my tent i think that's a reasonable
rendition of that
no two approaches that are solutions for
your concern one is that we absolutely
need to have submissions for defense
designs from now on then all kathy would
have to do is forward it to me and a lot
of them i do
which is great
but again they're not required
and two we need to we need a code
revision just not sure what would have
eliminated this this issue because
didn't you determine that it's
not crystal clear what's the structural
side and what's the decorative side on
this fence i know you don't want to talk
about facts yeah but but i i can i can
you know i'll provide my information and
where i'm coming from because i like to
try to be consistent because when you
start being inconsistent it comes back
to bite you so well and and i can have
that because that's also beside the
point in in the sense that
even if she got the drawings and made
the determination
a neighbor needs to know what that
determination is
to protect themselves so there has to be
some kind of provision in the code for
notice in the administrative contiguous
property owners and the administrative
process for that could take no more than
10 minutes how how long does it drive
take to drive from one side of actually
to the other
kathy kathy would have what they had
filed what they have submitted and they
would uh and they've articulated this is
what the fence is going to look like she
can go out she could make a reasonable
determination were they compliant with
that application and were they not i
think that would therefore address uh
you know uh rick i think that would
address your concern about overburdening
us because it just again becomes an
administrative thing so we have the rare
opportunity that does happen
and if she does make a determination for
it then she would report to this board
that she believes that this is not that
not in compliance she would ultimately
be through your authority yeah when the
appeal is filed she'll be a witness
exactly absolutely now
not to go too far aside she does that
and she renders a written report who
should give it to the neighbors
contiguous neighbors that's why the code
needs to be probably changed
contiguous neighbors not that hard to do
three two three neighbors get a get an
id are notified that a dis a
a permit was granted
and the drawings are available at
www.bexley.com or you can come down to
city hall and look at them or whatever
and they have 10 days to go do their
business
and and or not so a citizen of bexley
that drives down a major thoroughfare
and sees the structural side of the
fence has nothing to say about it
correct
probably right you'd have to be somebody
that has standing
mm-hmm
i mean otherwise we are opening the
floodgates i think or if it's brought to
my attention and i
yellow you know when i was on the
columbus board of zoning appeals
somebody built on the glenn echo ravine
you're familiar with the glen echo
ravine nearby arcadia
a
big addition to the back of their house
it just so happened to be that they were
on the clintonville area commission
which that's a clintonville area there
and
they came
then somebody complained to the city the
city
said hey this is in violation of the the
code that came before the b zap and i
mean the guy built it it was a built 10
feet higher than he was allowed to build
i mean a humongous structure right
and
we had to make him tear it down
there are situations where people come
get all the permits do what they wanted
you know in the 40s and 50s and 30s it
was famous you could go down here to
harrison west and they took a two family
and they made a nine family out of it
now i'm not kidding you now nine family
units in one big old
brick house in harrison west they didn't
care what the laws they just went ah
they did what they wanted to do i just
find out how old you were in the 30s
well
regrettably i had these cases when the
chairman sold the nine unit
the nine unit
and the buyer was told he had to reduce
it back to two
and believe me that buyer was
back in front of the bees app in five
seconds right
fences without permits
i've got one that's go over a driveway
now you can't get to the garage oh
really interesting i'm working on that
one still yeah all right
have we had enough discussion now that's
the question i think i mean i i agree
it's a tough decision and
but i think we need to confront it and
we need to deal with it and
you know they told me well how's it
going to turn out he said i don't know
how it's going to turn out i don't know
how i'm going to vote yet but i think
our votes
so are you going to call the question
yeah i'd like to call the question yeah
and and that would be the question is do
we accept this appeal or do we not based
upon the facts the the procedural facts
once again the design of the fence
has nothing to do with our decision we
don't even know what the design of the
fence was or what the complaint is or
what the prop the proponents position is
we have no idea and it's irrelevant and
we don't need to know it
so the question now is
should we accept the appeal
on the procedural facts that have been
presented to us or shall we not
accept the appeal
with that in mind i
asked kathy to call the
question
i don't think we need a motion i think
it's a proposition for the board to
accept or reject
should we make it as a motion though
just to keep well it's administratively
clear yeah yeah maybe maybe we should
let's do it that way yeah
move
yeah i'd like to make a business on that
on that question please
your move your motion is that we accept
the appeal
my motion is that we vote on whether or
not to accept the appeal
yes being we accept the appeal no
being mr ridgeway um
okay yep
in other words yes we accept the appeal
so if you vote yes on a motion so the
motion is that we accept the appeal
so either you'll vote yes i agree with
that motion or no i do not agree with
that we need a second on that motion we
do
second okay
okay i will call the role please
mr levine
how could you do that yeah don't call
him first
okay i
i can't get past the feeling that
this question that we're considering is
a square peg in a round point
i don't think it's what the ordinance
was intended however i can't abide
just leaving
this applicant with
it's not our problem go sue
so i vote yes
mr sheikh
for that record and if this vote is
inappropriate and um
i'm wrong on this i'm going to be happy
to be wrong in this but i vote yesterday
kind of for the same reasons that mr
levine said i mean it just
it
by not voting yes i i think it puts
everyone in a precarious situation so
yes
chairman b
i vote yes also
so the appeal is is
accepted
and it will be set for hearing
now
do you want to set it for march or april
probably april because i may not be here
in march oh okay yeah well i think
you're going to need to be here yeah
subject matter with us of course you're
definitely going to be here march okay
i wish i were going to be here in march
march is going to be tough okay let's do
it i think we have spring break
in april and april april 24th or 20th i
know in march excuse me that's march
that's why our march is hard yeah march
is hard yeah april's not hard well
you know
it doesn't matter the defense is already
there it's either this is going to come
down the line whether it comes down in
30 or 60 doesn't make that much
difference right you can work something
out with the waffle stones in the
meantime
sure on this possibility i mean i um
yeah
you know i'm glad you made that that was
the vote that you took because i do
think from my recent experience
um it came up one week ago to me it's
been really
uh
just unusual that i've had to go through
um
the email chain i see attorney jumping
in
um on and weighing in so heavily on
something like a fence i mean but it
matters like you but it matters greatly
uh to a to a property owner and
um i appreciate that there is at least
some revenue in this case and that at
least it will be addressed for others
going forward that yeah that's important
can i ask could i ask one question of
you sir sorry i didn't mean it but you
know i i don't want to get in any
questions about the facts of this case
right okay please because i i'd rather
it all be on the record when the
opponent is is
able to hear the responses and able to
to defend themselves and so
i would just as soon
not get into any more detailed questions
it's april 28th april 28th okay
thank you thanks for your attendance and
your patience and is joe your father
joey yeah we um i mean we were neighbors
with right that's why yes i i mean i was
somewhat um i mean you were off to law
school i think
as i was maybe
if you guys don't mind hold on for one
second uh yeah i'd like to adjourn the
meeting first yeah
i don't want to be much more discussion
here uh is there any other business for
the board anybody motion to adjourn
there's been a motion to adjourn all in
favor
yes