they could be in attendees um
let me see on my list i have marsh
levine
mitchell chick turner and b hall
yes i'm looking for some sometimes
all right you guys are streaming live
great thank you
yep
the line's not here yeah i'm looking in
the attendees to
see because a lot of times he'll end up
in the attendees room
and i am putting jason in with us
and catherine is there a link on the
website too or no there must be because
there's quite a bit of
there's quite a few people here there's
12 people in the attendees room right
now
i'm looking for rick
i have one two three
sorry
yeah i'm still missing two board members
so we just have a quorum
for four is a corn we have five right
now
we have mr scheck mr b hall
uh mr turner mitchell is mr marsh here
yes yes so we're just missing
missing mr levine is that what we're
going to have tonight is six
yeah and aren't we also missing mr phelp
uh he is unable to make it this evening
okay so we just have six
yes tonight
kathy do you have his number do you want
to call him or
boy i know stacy does if i don't
but she didn't oh let me put stacy into
the
yeah stacy's in the panelist room
okay well we have five
yeah he confirmed so i'm gonna confirm
levine yes i wonder if i can
send
i'm looking in the panel in the
attendees room again
but i so do not see him yet
yeah he said at 5 20 said i got your
voicemail and
responded directly i am available
[Music]
kathy i had responded to you twice that
i could make it and you guys kept
emailing me saying can i make it so i
don't know what was happening there but
i in in the future i might actually have
stacy doing that
because sometimes some of these get lost
in like the 40 emails i get every
day so that's becoming more of a
challenge so she's she's offered to
reach out and uh
yeah that's fine i just i think the one
time she emailed me and then i responded
to you and then about
an hour later she emailed me again and
i'm like well apparently i probably
didn't see it i apologize
that's okay i just want to make sure
it's working
oh here he is okay yes he is i'm putting
him to the panelist room
okay we should be good
are you there rick
there it is
there he is all right
we have all board members present having
trouble finding the
link to the meeting i got you now
okay okay
and is everybody able to see the screen
okay yes we're good to go right okay
thank you very much
ladies and gentlemen i'm going to call
the uh
special meeting of the bexley board of
zonian planning
for march 24th
uh in the session uh kathy would you
please call the role of the board
members president mr marsh
here mr levine here
ms mitchell here mr schick
here mr turner here chairman b hall
president all right thank you very much
uh at this
time we have uh i say set aside
at each meeting a
period for public comments on the work
of the
board of zoning and planning not an
individual case but rather
the general work of the board
are there any people present in the
audience that wish to make
public comments
i do have a hand raised okay
for a james arnold which i will
give him speaking permission okay there
mr arnold
i am here good evening jimmy uh are
are you here uh to make a comment about
general work of the board of zoning and
planning or
here to make a comment on the case that
we're going to hear tonight bob you're
right i'm here to talk about the case
okay the general okay all right good
thank you
all right um i don't think we need to
approve the minutes of the last meetings
we'll do that tomorrow
for the minutes of the meeting that
was the the regularly scheduled meeting
in
uh february so i'm gonna
skip the minutes and tomorrow we can
approve the minutes of
that meeting and if we have them we can
approve the minutes of this meeting at
that time
all right uh old business we have
one case that was heard in
january and there was
subsequently a motion by a member of the
board of zoning and planning that was
seconded and
it was voted upon in a positive fashion
so we are
reconsidering the case of
uh 424 south colombia which is case
number b
z ap dash 20.
the applicant is solving builders
and the
[Music]
request is to
reconsider the decision that was made in
the prior
action i want to say that what we are
not going to do is
listen to evidence that was already
presented in other words
the the record that was made in the
first hearing
is still the record of this case it
doesn't get obliterated in any way
uh or vitiated by the fact that we're
reconsidering it
so the evidence that was taken at that
meeting
is part of the record on this case and
will remain so
on the other hand if we have new
uh evidence new information
or if members of the panel have any
questions of
the uh applicant or any of the
witnesses they are certainly free to ask
those questions
whereupon we will um
vote again on this matter uh i think it
would be helpful if
jason you could give us a staff report
on this matter so that we have all
and and mind you it's been 60 days so i
think it would be a good refresher for
everybody to hear the
uh staff report sure
um thanks chairman i am going to uh
summarize the issues from
um a little bit more from a zoning
perspective just so we understand
what is and isn't relevant for your
review
as the bees app um i know there's been
obviously a lot of discussion on this
case
uh so the reason i'm here is more so to
clear up any issues that may be
outstanding
or any confusion that has to to resolve
revolve around zoning
and then of course karen's here to
answer any questions that have to do
with the specific design
questions uh or architecture so with
that i will be
brief and then be happy to answer any
questions this
is as you know from your previous review
in the medium density single-family
residential district which is an r3
district
which is um a district like all of our
residential districts that has
a certain set of criteria that must be
met with regard to site design
and overall building but not
particularly uh
specific outside of that it basically
just sets the framework
for the envelope that the building has
to sit in and the general size that the
building can be
and then everything else has to do with
the architectural review
the architectural characteristics i've
summarized for you in the staff report
in in a table so that we know which
things are still
out there that are being considered for
change by you today and which ones have
either been resolved or really don't
have to do
with what you're considering and i'll
just go through those very quickly
and again please feel free to stop me if
you have any questions
uh karen will be able to answer the
detail questions though following this
much better so
i'll leave those to her but the window
grids uh that was a point of
of contention earlier and something that
was
changed by the applicant um from the
original
there were typically six uh pain on the
upper and now they're for pain
on both again i'll let karen answer the
details on the the actual style
questions um there also been some
changes in the size
and specific location of some of the
windows the that is not met
according to the original certificate of
appropriateness so the applicant is here
today
requesting that an amendment be made to
approve what is instead there which is
different
the front porch and door the applicant
has agreed to meet what was in the
original certificate
and so that again doesn't present any
circumstance for you as long as they
meet that they will get approval
the garage door they have also agreed to
meet what was in the original
certificate of appropriateness so again
not something
that you need to worry about they can't
proceed to their final completion of the
project unless they do that
uh height i'll get back to that in just
a second because that's come up i know
as a specific issue and we'll talk about
that more in just just a moment
the side entry they have modified the
shape of the side entry
uh and um and elements of that that
karen can tell you about
more detail they have not met that that
is one of the four items
that they are asking for a modification
on
skylights they have requested that some
skylights be installed on some rear roof
planes
that is also an issue that was not in
the original cla so they are asking for
an update on that one
uh solar panels the added solar panel
request
that actually meets the criteria for
code citing so that
is not applicable to your review that
just fits into uh you know the staff
review based on the the solar panel
section of the code lintels they have
agreed to meet those
i know that they've already changed some
of those on the building i'm not sure if
they've all been changed
but again those are met so you don't
need to consider that because they need
to do that
by their agreement or they would have to
come back for another modification
change of the pool house roof was
brought up that was
previously approved by staff that is not
part of this application review that's
already been
basically deemed to be okay based on
code a change of the pool house size
it is somewhat larger it's now 653
square feet
that's very much below the code
requirement allowing 35
out of the building footprint of the
principal structure um i have the
scratch notes here somewhere but it
would it could be
a whole lot bigger than that um so it's
not even close
and um the wall fencing and the site
landscaping
those were both originally reviewed by
the tree and public garden commission
so it would be our recommendation that
you send both of those issues
back to the tree and public garden
commission for their review and approval
in order to reach a resolution on
whatever the
those particulars were since they were
the ones who saw that
as per a rematch back so that's a
summary of all those issues
i just want to talk about height for
another second because i know that came
up very specifically
the one thing i want to be really clear
about is that
the height is not in any way in
violation of the code
height for this site you can only review
this height
as as architecturally significant
it is not in any way in excess the code
allows 40 feet
as the maximum height in this district
it's a little confusing because what it
does
is it actually says that it has to be
from the grade
before it was um before it was built
and so you know there could be some
question about if that's exactly the
same grade
we do have those original plans that did
call out those grades
there's also a provision of the code
that's rarely cited because
typically it's not a concern and really
isn't a concern with this house
but the way that height is actually
measured for this style of roof
which is almost all roofs of all
residential throughout bexley basically
if it's not a man certain it's not a
flat
it's pretty much going to be a gable hip
or a gamble roof that's going to be
almost every single other roof
the way that's measured is a little bit
unusual in our code
they the it actually takes not the top
of the ridge line
it takes a point that's an average
between the eave and the ridgeline
halfway up so in reality under our code
a house in the r3 district could be
significantly taller
than 40 feet if it was uh measured
by uh you know the average that was
quite a you know a significant distance
depending on the type of the roof
this one actually doesn't exceed 40 feet
from grade
so it's not even close it's really very
very far away from
exceeding that and that's before we even
apply this
you know the end of this definition
about measuring it from
the middle of the of the roof line it's
actually not even reaching it from the
ridge line
so um again you can look at that i just
want to be clear that you're not looking
at that from a zoning perspective
it's really a measure an estimation in
your case
of whether or not any change in height
would have a significant
fundamental change in the characteristic
of the building itself
because zoning criteria are met so you
don't have to have any kind of standard
there
other than that i mentioned landscaping
and screening we'd remand that back
and i do have some recommended
conditions here if you choose to act
tonight
really it's just enumerating the
specific things that are in that
chart and then also karen had also also
mentioned that
there are some columns that need to be
detailed to accurately reflect reflect
the
the correct type of construction so that
would be the five things the window
grids the height modified
the side entry door and architecture the
skylights and the columns
and then remand the landscape plan back
to the train public garden commission
um and that's that's it from vermont and
on zoning
so with that i'll answer any questions
and then be happy to uh obviously i'll
stick around to
answer anything that comes up throughout
the hearing thank you very much
jason mr sudy do you have any questions
but sorry i have a question for jason
real quick yeah all right
when you said modify the you said leave
the porch alone are they changing out
the windows on the porch or
they're just modifying the door on the
porch i'm going to pass the book to
karen on that one
you're on mute karen karen
sorry about that i believe they um
mr miller can speak to it when he
testifies but i believe they are
putting the door back to the original
design so the windows would remain
the same on the door that's not to say
that the rest of the windows weren't
um they're asking for the grid pattern
to be changed from the original
condition so it depends if you're
talking about the door or the or the
window
just jason just jason said that they
they agreed to modify the porch but the
but from the before and after pictures
that are the proposed and the as built
the windows on the actual windows
not not related to the door are
different style are those windows right
staying what they are now or they might
have are they going to bring those
windows neck too
those are yeah because they're much and
when we when we talk about some of the
architecture design of the front porch
we're talking about much more than just
the windows which is what i'm concerned
about as
as a design consultant that i'd like to
i want to see the details of the porch
meaning the columns
um there's several details that are in
my staff report that i'd not duplicate
i've just submitted the same stuff
report as
last month that i'm happy to bring back
because you know
jason and i are compliments to each
other he does these nice charts and i
have the images so
whichever you'd like to see i'm happy to
pull up but um i
i'll just answer questions as needed at
this point
but yes sean to your point the windows
are being asked to be accepted in a
different pattern
different size different grid pattern
but the front door
is going back to the original design
that's what i asked thank you
um jason i just had a real quick
question so
we're not um weighing
the height of the roof in terms of
code just more architectural correct
okay thank you if you think the change
in the height has a significant
um you know if it significantly uh
changes your perception of how your
approval should be based on that that's
one thing
but yeah there's in no way does it
exceed our maximum height requirement
okay
that makes sense thank you
jason i have a question about the wall
i drove by the property on my way home
today and noticed what appears to be
the wall is new along the at least along
the front
and does that mean that
that wall was built before the tree and
public gardens commission approved it
um are you talking about the wall that's
the retaining wall that runs
next to the pool is that the the wall
i'm
i'm talking about the one that's
parallel to columbia
oh um yeah i don't know actually karen
can you speak to that
um i have
some pictures in my staff report that i
can pull up
hold on one second
uh this is what you're talking about
correct
this elevation
it's um to the south of there is what i
noticed
this right here yeah yes yes yeah
yeah um i don't have the
approved landscape plan but most of the
and i don't remember if it was in the
front or just down the side but
certainly all the way down the side
on the south property line was
approved as a wrought iron fence not as
a wall so that will be going back
to the train public gardens commissions
to be either revised or
built back as it was originally supposed
to be built back
so even with all the controversy
surrounding this the construction
that that was still built correct
would anybody like any more images put
up or it has any more have any more
design
questions um i'm more than happy
to to answer any questions but i don't
feel like i sh
probably to with the respected time and
we have
also um many attendees here today
you scoot this image down just a little
bit
sure and perhaps make it just a teensy
bit larger because
yeah there we go thank you yeah
okay all right
thank you uh karen
all right uh mr
miller um
are you on with us here yes you are i am
uh please uh do you have additional
information or uh evidence to bring
forth this evening
i do thank you uh and and ms bokar if
you would please call up our
presentation if you don't mind
thank you so much uh first of all
uh members of these app thank you so
much for
uh your time this evening and your
reconsideration
of this matter on behalf of the shahs
who are sincerely grateful for your time
this evening at this special meeting
i'm also very mindful uh if we look at
the next slide ms bokar
that each person on the line has
attended or
reviewed the january 28th meeting so
trust me when i say this will not be a
rehash of that evidence but instead
we've listened and we're trying to
address directly questions issues or
thoughts that we heard expressed uh in
your prior meetings uh
very briefly summarily uh you've heard
previously from ms shaw the homeowner
who described
the project history here and and that we
are fully willing to accept the staff's
conditions and that remains true tonight
with the updated report
of mr sudhi uh you've heard from mr
sullivan of sullivan builders both about
efforts that have been made to remediate
the prior contractors uh
issues uh and and actions including
changes that have already been made
uh and mr uh sullivan also told you
about
what we've measured uh as the 18 inch
differential in height uh the 36 feet
six inches was approved it measures
today under the same methodology as 38
feet
and mr sullivan told you about the
enormous expense
uh to try to remedy that if it could
even be done
safely or soundly and finally you also
heard that evening from
brian ken jones uh specifically
regarding
a certificate of appropriateness and the
compatibility of this home
with the neighborhood mr jones testified
as to each of the changes and how they
remain
appropriate under the bexley city code
as well as the home
as a whole that it fully complied with
the standards for a certificate
of appropriateness i wouldn't point out
to you that mr sullivan
and mr jones are both here this evening
and available to
answer questions and so what we'd like
to do
is present evidence new evidence that
goes directly to the issues and
questions
you've raised previously turning to the
next slide if we
could please uh here we're in full
agreement
with mr suti and his chart as to uh
what the issues are for your
consideration recall there is
a certificate of appropriateness and so
the only legal question you face tonight
is
do these small changes suddenly make it
inappropriate in the neighborhood not
kind of starting over as ms cunningham
told you before
but instead do any of these discrete
changes suddenly now somehow violate
bexley city code
for appropriateness i have circled here
um home height because that's obviously
where the discussion
centered and we're prepared to discuss
uh the practical difficulties that
surround
even trying to go back to what was
previously constructed as asked by
members of the prior meeting i would say
that these changes are not only very
well summarized by mr shooti but the
shahs
are very gratified to have received a
recommendation of approval
both from ms beaucarp in the first
instance and now from
mr suti and certainly i'll just
reiterate again that the conditions
are acceptable as suggested for your
approval tonight
so dealing first with home height
if we could go to the next slide
this shows what was originally approved
and the as built
design as mr
kent jones explained this home height is
still
appropriate it's befitting of and
harmonious with the neighborhood
especially upon this extra large lot
one of the larger lots on this block and
in the immediate area
and of course we've noted not only is
the structure
fully code compliant i would emphasize
further what mr
said that we're less than 40 feet
at the ridge height at the very highest
point
i submit to you 18 inches only higher
than the approved design and i do not
believe that that
can take us out of compliance with
certain appropriateness without this
board
acting arbitrarily or capriciously under
the bexley city code
if we could look at the next slide uh in
terms of turning to new evidence and
new testimony we think it's definitely
appropriately sized when you look just
across the street
at 419 south columbia mr sullivan
working with a licensed
surveyor determined uh that in fact
that ridge height at its highest point
is just
under 40 feet the 39 feet 7.74 feet
is directly across the street likewise
on an extra large lot that .75 acre lot
that mirrors the shaws so not only is
this
home code compliant not only do we
believe the evidence has demonstrated
it's architecturally appropriate for the
neighborhood
we're not asking for anything that
doesn't already exist
directly across the street and the city
needs to be mindful about
equal application of its laws as mr
explained
the code as applied to this home says it
only needs to be 40 feet
halfway up towards the ridgeline it
could be well higher above
we're not seeking any of that instead as
i think you heard
in january the shahs are victims of this
process they're trying to be solution
oriented and
and turn towards how do we find our way
through this and i submit to you
that the 18 inches discrepancy that
exists
is still less than the home across the
street
and perceptibly as mr jones said does
not make a difference in terms of its
appropriateness
under the architectural standards that
guide you
and to that end i want to talk a little
bit about the practical difficulties
that exist
in this situation you've heard in
january extensively that the shaws went
back and put in
limestone lentils they went back to the
prior garage door the prior front door
as mr turner
asked about a moment ago they are making
changes as best they can to remediate
problems created but this roof height
simply cannot be safely or soundly
remedied
with any kind of proportionality as it
relates to the 18 inch
height differential if we could look at
the next slide
we're joined this evening by mike
coulter uh
we're fortunate that mr coulter is a
true expert on this roof issue that
several of you asked about
in january uh i'm gonna turn it over to
him in just a moment to explain uh the
real challenges
difficulties that would otherwise result
if this amendment is not approved this
evening
we also have the benefit of mr coulter's
experience as chairman of the
architectural review board
service on the planning commission and
the bca in worthington not because
he's here to tell you how to do your job
he's not but he has faced
certain situations just like this where
builders take
actions unauthorized by the city without
the owner's knowledge or
or understanding and find themselves in
exactly this kind of administrative
situation
so if i could i'd like to turn it over
for a few minutes to mr coulter to
address this roof height issue
specifically
i believe mr colfer's muted there we go
should we have mr culture sworn in yes
okay mr culture will you please state
your name and raise your right hand
uh michael coulter do you solemnly swear
our firm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth i do
thank you uh good evening um
my name is mike coulter i'm an architect
with detailed engineering
and i have the individual position of
being in the same chair as what you have
like i'm doing this very same thing
tomorrow night
and uh so i see this more often than
probably
most people do and i have
faced some of the same challenges with
what i do for the city of worthington
is what we are facing here tonight
uh just a couple of comments uh the
problems that we're facing with the
height of the building
are not due to any fault of the shaws
they are due to the fault of the
egregious first contractor who has since
been fired
and been replaced by the sullivan
brothers
as i took a look at the roof that's
primarily what i've been asked to
concentrate on there are a couple of
things that came to mind
uh when you look at the cost
to remove this roof to lower it
18 inches you're going to be north of
100
000 this is a
very custom roof it's not something that
you go to a truss manufacturer in order
and still keep the same design so
everything that you do is
going to be very expensive building
materials are getting harder to get i'm
sure
everybody has heard that especially if
you've gone to home depot to try to buy
anything to
do at your own home the cost of lumber
has doubled within the last year
uh building materials are getting harder
to get
when i took a look at the logistics of
how to do this
and then we've done some projects in the
city of worldington where people have
taken the roof off and actually added a
second story
uh i've done that on the commercial side
of the business that i've done over the
years
it's a very difficult thing to do the
things that you need to keep in mind
when this is being done is one is it's
going to extend
the the time period for this house to be
completed by at least
two to three months if not longer and
that will depend
somewhat on when materials can be had
the entire design of the roof is going
to have to be re-engineered
and redesigned a structural engineer is
going to have to assist mr jones with
how connections are made
again this is not an easy thing to do
the logistics of it is you're going to
have to have a crane on the site
the crane is going to need to be there
so that when the
carpenters go through and they cut up
the existing roof
in sections so it can be lifted off and
put into either dump trucks or dumpsters
or whatever
just the process of lifting those
materials and taking them over and
swinging them over to a dumpster or a
dump truck or whatever
is somewhat hazardous i have seen a
couple of times
when the lines holding the loads have
let go and that's never a good thing
it's always a disastrous
thing when that occurs one of the other
things that
that i am concerned about is once that
roof is opened up
it's wide open to the elements if you
get a signature
rain which is is what i call anything
that's 20 year
or above and we're getting into the
rainy season
for central ohio over the next couple of
months you're going to have extensive
damage on the interior of that home
if it's not completely covered if it's
not
protected or if whatever is used there
to protect it
fails so you could cause significant
damage on the inside
the walls on the inside depending on how
those are connected to the existing roof
structure those may have to be
redesigned and re-supported
and completely rebuilt because you may
have you would have to have a lower
pitch than what you have now
you're going to have trucks parked up
and down south columbia avenue
they're going to need to be staged so
that as materials come off the roof
they've got some place to go
so they're not sitting there on the on
the grounds of the home
so that they leave the neighborhood as
quickly as possible
so that could include some minor
road closures uh which is always a
problem
you know for neighbors uh when they're
trying to get home and going back and
forth
when i was i was out there as recent as
yesterday afternoon
walked all around the home i reviewed
all of the items that
that have been contested over the past
uh just so that i could get a better
feel for
some of the challenges that are going to
need to be done
and when i took a look at how that
related to the roof
i don't know that lowering the roof is
going to significantly gain you anything
other than just lowering the roof and
that seems to be an adverse punishment
on the homeowners
um again this is not something that they
caused it's something that was
brought about by the first contractor so
we do have some concerns there
that i did review some of the comments
that were
provided by by different folks uh
relative to the height of the room
and one of the comments was that they
were concerned about
the lights that were on the roof that
would be shining into the backyard
of their home so i assume that they are
one of the adjacent property owners
that's a pretty easy thing to remedy uh
even by leaving the
where the lights are mounted on the
house is not going to change from what
it was originally designed
the only thing that has changed is the
ridgeline
so there shouldn't be any issues there
if it does turn out to be a problem they
can always put
baffles on the light so it cuts it off
at the property line so it doesn't bleed
over or
go into the the adjacent property
owner's
backyard but the biggest concern that i
have is
what's the cost benefit to doing this
just to gain 18 inches
for all of the work that is going to be
involved
it just seems unreasonable
to ask the homeowners to go back and do
that
that doesn't mean you have to be happy
about it i've been in that same position
where i have
recommended and voted for things that
contractors have done though i didn't
like it just because the
outcome if they were to go back and make
the changes just didn't seem
worth the effort either for the city of
worthington where i live or in this case
for the
city of baxley so the biggest things in
my mind is
it's a safety issue uh it's a cost issue
and it's a time issue so with those
three things in mind i'd
be happy to answer any questions that
anybody might have
thank you mr colter uh mr g holly
hearing no questions i'm prepared to
proceed at this time with further
explanation evidence
assuming that's acceptable karen if or
miss bocarf we could see the next slide
questions were raised at the january
meeting
about issues with the prior contractor
good questions were asked about
change orders how did the process work
are there is there a lawsuit against the
depriver builder
um and we want to provide and be as
transparent as we can with
ample information in that regard so to
to address
those issues with the prior contractor
we'd like you to hear
from jen solomon as well as like a shot
and michael will not be
repeating her prior testimony but trying
to take head on those issues as raised
so at this time i would like to turn it
over to
jen solomon another client of mr
mariello the prior
builder to give you some context and
understanding
of likewise how the shahs came to a
similar situation
i'm not sure if ms solomon's been
admitted but if i could ask that she
please be
admitted i appreciate it
so will miss solomon be speaking hi yes
i'm here
sorry about that wait please stay state
your name and raise your right hand
my name is jennifer solomon you saw me
swear or affirm the testimony you're
about to give this evening is the truth
i do thank you
do you guys want me just to start or do
you have
questions or how oh miss miss solomon
this is joe miller uh
if you would please uh recite uh the
facts you're prepared to share with the
board this evening
sure um i my husband and i
built with the shah's previous
contractor
um i think we started our process
shortly before they started theirs um
we broke ground um in june of 2018
um almost probably
a year after we went into contract on
our land
to build a custom home um
and the process from the start was very
slow
um and um
but we were okay with that as long as
you know my husband and i we have three
children
um mark i'm sorry mr mariello signed a
contract that said
um that construction would be complete
in a year
and that um we would be able to move in
to our new home the following
june um things were moving very slowly
um we would come out to our lot there
would be no one here
um no other subcontractors
nothing going on for months
i mean not all at once like occasionally
there would be one guy here
the next week there would be a couple
guys here it went really slowly
um but we have never built a custom home
before so we didn't
know that you know anything was out of
the ordinary and i know things happen
and and you know people get busy
and so we were extremely patient with
him at that point
um but basically in speaking with lekka
we discovered that we had the exact same
experience
um with this contractor um
things weren't getting done we would
call him we would come out to the lot
he wouldn't return our calls always had
a reason well this contractor is backed
up
the driveway can't get put in until
you know three months from now because
so it always had a reason
um and eventually it was
two years past the point where we broke
ground and we still weren't in um
our neighbors we we do live on 12 acres
but we live in a neighborhood
um where everyone has some acreage so
the homeowners association was getting
frustrated with us for being
outside of the year contract and still
having construction going on
and trucks going in and out um
mr miller i i don't think anyone's
contesting that the first contractor
wasn't good
so i i'm not sure if this is really
relevant to the case that we're hearing
tonight okay i
understood mr martian and and to be
believed uh
questions were raised before about how
did this happen
and uh but what she's talking about
is a different property correct uh yes
but a remarkably similar circumstance
where she was always told
it's fine it's being taken care of i i
have everything we need she didn't
receive
change orders uh if if things if there
are issues
he would say that i've taken care of the
approvals remarkably similar and i
wanted to give the board comfort this is
not
the shah's in any way going rogue but
instead finding themselves having hired
someone
and if the board prefers we can move to
lake shaw
and the direct experience of the shahs
in this regard to address the questions
uh that were raised in january uh i
think after miller
appreciate that mr miller yeah i was
just going to say i
um miss solomon i appreciate your um
context because i think context always
is very helpful
but miss shaw's testimony
sounds like it's gonna sound similar and
that's where
perfect yeah i'd like to spend our
energy and time
hearing so i appreciate you providing a
little more context
with your experience no problem i i
completely understand i i do want to say
that we have the exact same experience
in comparing notes
um and i am here to vouch for that
so were changes made in your
construction
that you didn't know about and you only
found out after the fact
not structurally but yes there were
things that were done that were not
um discussed with my husband and i
um for example our front porch is a
um kind of like a veneer
um wood type situation it was supposed
to be
completely cement um that went in
without us knowing there there were
multiple things
that occurred like that
thank you miss solomon and at this time
we would offer like a shot to briefly
address
some of these issues
hi can you hear me
yeah so i'm just responding um to a
question
that was brought up by the board in our
previous meeting um
in regards to kind of how we came to be
in this situation
um you know my husband and i were not
contractors we
have never built a home prior to this
home on 424
we relied on our contractor to
build the home as brian kent jones
designed it um
again knowing you know he knew the city
and he knew
um the things that they look for in home
in terms of design
and that's what we wanted uh and instead
what happened was our
our prior contractor made these changes
yes can i have you sworn in please oh
i'm sure sorry yes i'm sorry
yeah please raise your right hand do you
saw me swerve from the testimony you're
about to give this evening
is the truth yes it is thank you
okay um so you know just to be
very clear the changes occurred occurred
with no
written change orders or even a verbal
um permission from my husband and i um
and
the actual issue regarding the height of
the home that actually
came up after we hired sullivan builders
um
and we had heard from neighbors that
there was concerns
regarding the height of the home the
18-inch difference
is something that we actually didn't
even notice and it's certainly something
that we did not approve or ask to be
done
um i think it was more brought about by
you know neighbors who hadn't had an
issue with it or were concerned with it
thank you mr shaw um
and so you see obviously with without
any written change orders these these
changes were made that shaw's like
ms solomon and her husband were assured
whatever approvals were needed were
taken care of
um and we wanted to provide that context
if we could look at the next slide
because i know that obviously we're very
attuned to the shazar uh
some of the neighbors who have expressed
their concerns about this home
we did want to at least share with this
board uh that we
are happy to have support from adjacent
neighbors in fact
each of the neighbors you'll hear from
briefly tonight are directly contiguous
to this property they are the
most in proximity they are the most
quote unquote affected by
the appearance of this home and we
believe that each are here this evening
to express their support uh for this
amended certificate and i would ask that
you first
hear from charlie heyer who is
immediately to the south
of this home on columbia
so i just want to share that the
chairman's having problems unmuting
oh okay can anybody hear me no now we
can hear you now yeah you can hear me
so i've been sitting here with
apparently no ability to talk and so
these long pauses of mr miller after you
were calling witnesses was
not because i was trying to make you sit
there awkwardly but rather because i
was talking and nobody was hearing me so
unfortunately my own human nature makes
me awkward so you did not impose that
my wife would like to permanently make
that happen but i don't think she's
going to be successful
so now i apologize for that
and uh uh at this time
do we did anybody have any question of
um
uh ms shaw dr shaw
mr chairman i do okay thank you
uh mr shea please yes uh
this is mr thank you once again very
much um
the at the last meeting i understand it
was quite content
it was quite contentious there was a lot
of confusion um
as this board knows and as i would like
to put on the record i did receive
a telephone call that in no way impacted
my decision to bring this up again um
from an associate of yours
um but um what i wanted to do is i
wanted to go over a couple issues
because what i've done
since i've changed basically the the
route of my dog walking
and have been studying your property in
the adjacent properties
and i had some very very simple
questions that i think
myself and also mr levine would be very
interested first and foremost
when you discovered that the brick wall
was installed instead of a wrought iron
wall um what was your reaction to that
and what did you what statement did you
make to the builder
um sorry can you clarify which wall
you're referring to
on the that would be the south side of
the house there was
um and the original uh certificate
appropriateness there was a wrought iron
fence
and i believe karen we could bring that
up
correct we had that up earlier
and perhaps this could clarify some
confusion
hold on sorry there's a lot of things
here
i think it was actually on page here's
well here's landscape plans
is that what you'd like to see
don't you have photos sorry
no no alicia please i was just gonna say
i thought
there were like something more than just
the plans
i can scroll through everything i have
here
i believe it was on page one
there it is it doesn't show the the side
but it does show in the in the plan
there's in the exact there is there's a
little bit of a wall
on the original plan and the modified
plan that has a wrought iron gate
and then the rest of the plan that was
originally approved has a wrought iron
fence down the south side so it's the
front it has both wall and tran
and wrought iron in the original design
if the major change in my from my
design perspective is the wall along the
south side
which i believe abuts mr heyer's house
um
it was designed and i can go back to the
the plan as a wrought iron fence
still with the same large evergreens on
either side
but it is it's different than a than a
big wall that's there now or a thicker
wall
karen i believe it shows up in the
renderings in the landscape
so that they were further down way way
down and it was a view
where you're looking east to west so
you're standing in the backyard
looking forward there's like three
pictures keep going just up a little bit
more
keep going it's the last it's the last
page yeah i believe it's it is a lot
okay
keep going keep going page 11 very
bottom in the bottom picture
yes that bottom picture right there yeah
i'm sorry i was looking for a photograph
this is the one right
these are the lansing plans it's a
little confusing because the white
out footprint that is actually the house
and then it shows the
accessory structure in the center of
this picture and then
to the south which is to the left
there's a retaining wall with that
hedgerow along there and that is the
neighbor's driveway that dark gray line
shown along the
left hand side of that and that's mr
hyers driveway correct
correct correct this whatever this that
my cursor is on
is what's changed since
yeah the original landscape plan which
was the wrought iron fence
yeah mr suti has said and he can agree
or
i think he'll agree because it's also in
his staff report that
although that is different we would
recommend
that it be a condition for that to go
back to the dream public gardens
commission
in other words that we don't have a
specific answer for that
problem we do for a lot of the other
architectural issues but for this one
we would highly recommend the condition
that it go back to the tree and public
guardians commission
but i would like to get to um and
ultimately my question here is
with regards to the higher property i'd
like to come back to that which is uh
some
water repairing issues that he had
mentioned in the last one but
uh most importantly um miss shaw
the last time we spoke i think
a lot of us were trying to balance
establishing precedent versus
trying to avoid bad faith when did you
begin discovering
a lot of these issues were happening and
did you take any remediation
at that time on any factors
sure um i think we noticed things were
um
starting to go astray really when we
were in the thick of covid
um quarantine probably june
june yeah maybe april may june
sometime around there of 2020. um
and to be quite honest i would say the
structural changes
were noticed and brought to our
attention after sullivan builders came
in and
did a thorough investigation of the work
that was um already completed
um you know and we kind of met with them
on site
to say okay this is what you're doing
you're taking over let's move forward
and they kind of said well hold on
before we move forward there's a couple
things that are a little bit different
and we just kind of want to know what's
going on with that and that was
where we were like wow okay we weren't
aware of that i mean
you know obviously this is a lesson
we've learned if we ever were to build
again but
truly i would say those things um were
made aware
those changes that were made were
brought to our attention
when we met solvent builders
i hope that answers your question as a
matter of fact it does um again i just
wanted to to get down to the timeline
of what was going on here because that
was a large part of my concern for
uh raising this matter again and once
again i thank everybody for
their time this evening for this special
hearing looking through this uh one of
the concerns
in perhaps mr heyer i know who's waiting
here to discuss this but
there appeared to be a um a water matter
that was occurring
on the driveway and i wanted to see if
um
we were to as we reconsider this that we
could
uh discuss ways to remediate that
because having
as you mentioned the shot uh dealt with
coven we've dealt with the flood
basement twice this year and it just
it felt like uh 2020 was just you know
shooting at all of us
in many ways so i wanted to discuss that
that was a major concern of mine
um i think they may be able to address
that as a building issue yes
uh yes mr schick any changes on a
property
cannot create a drainage issue for the
neighbor and that is dealt with on a
building department level where when
there are inspections and those things
are on track of the changes made by whom
they're responsible to make sure that
there's
implementations to rectify the problem
if in fact there is a problem
so mr schick so what i would suggest
is that to alleviate your concern
on this issue that we make a condition
not that we have to but we could make a
condition
uh that says that they have to go
through the normal permitting process
with regard to
uh the riparian issues but
but kathy you're telling me that that
happens regardless of what we do here
yeah like it needs to be a condition
yes these can sometimes occur after the
fact and and
with the permits we know who's you know
made changes to a property so
they're responsible to to correct the
problem
okay whether it takes a sump pump or and
this happens
every now and then so yes that is a
building department problem they cannot
leave
a drainage issue for that neighbor so it
will be dealt with through the building
department
okay mr rosen mr chairman i appreciate
that um and uh
out of respect to the rest of my uh my
board members um michael thank you very
much
um i answered a very important question
for me thank you
does anybody else have any questions of
uh doctors
shaw
okay mr miller
yes we would ask that uh mr hyre uh uh
speak at this time i i think
obviously we are not only uh required by
the code to deal with riparian issues i
think
mr sullivan and dr shaw have hopefully
mr higher would agree
have have taken steps to to address
these issues hopefully to mr higher
satisfaction but
let's hear from mr higher if we could
please okay mr ohio he now has
permission to talk
um can you raise your right hand and
catfield swear you in
thank you
uh can you hear me yes sir okay i can't
see me
so i wasn't sure i was on i've my right
hand is raised
okay kathy you're muted
mr hyer do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you sir mr maynard
thank you let me first address the uh
the drainage concern i have
i've been working for a month and a half
or longer
with sullivan about uh dealing with the
drainage and they've already installed
i think a four inch perforated
pipe along uh part of my driveway
on on the on the shaw's side
to deal with that and it appears to be
working
but uh that that was a
an issue i expressed concerned about uh
at the last meeting and it is being
dealt with
to my satisfaction they've been very
nice about that
okay um let me let me first formally
introduce myself and charlie hyatt
my wife andrew and i have lived at 436
south columbia the house immediately
south of the shaw's house for 46 years
and uh i'd like to say for starters
andrea and i are happy to support the
shaw's revised application
uh as as i briefly mentioned the shahs
and sullivan have been very
accommodating
in addressing our concerns about the
drainage
from the shah's property onto our
driveway
and with respect to certain landscaping
issues
and i'm sitting here looking out my
office window at the shaw's house and
thinking
it's time for this project
to get completed and to welcome the
shahs
into their new residence and
we certainly support uh approval
of the revised application
thanks mr heyer i appreciate it you've
been uh
at every hearing uh on this property
well before the shaw's ownership so i
appreciate your
time and uh your testimony thank you
you're welcome
thank you mr miller yes chairman b hall
we would now
ask uh deborah weapon to speak she lives
again
immediately contiguous to the shaw's
home uh
behind the home at 431 south drexel
thank you ms weapon can you hear me
hi um actually legally my name is
devorah lipkin
okay so i should be foreign and as such
all right let's do that let's uh
you would be so kind as to raise your
right hand and i'll swear you in
do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give this
evening will be the truth and the whole
truth
uh yes thank you very much thank you
very much
mr miller uh thank you
go right ahead uh if you would please
ma'am
so we um our property is directly behind
this uh house that's being built um we
have lived in our house for
a little over seven and a half years and
during that time we have not had anyone
living at 424
south columbia um and
while issues have been raised about the
height and yes it's a little high
um we feel that um
having neighbors versus a uh
an empty lot is uh
would be great for the neighborhood um
the shahs have reached out about
landscaping
and putting in uh full landscaping and
they've been
extremely um
uh wonderful about that and i mean for
us that's the biggest issue we don't
want
um we prefer right now we're completely
open
the people all the way on the other side
of columbia can see
you know into our house um because it's
open and they've said that they will
um do that but we just
feel like you know
i understand the concerns about the
height but that sort of
we feel that the ship has sailed on that
one and that
um we would prefer to have neighbors and
prefer to have
um you know this
basically move on especially with
full-size landscaping and everything
else that they've said that they would
do
so you know that's that's we
we support them moving ahead and
figuring out a way to
make it happen okay i think
we appreciate your coming down or not
coming down now
but you're appearing here and giving us
your perspective on this case
you don't have a problem with any of the
other issues that were raised uh
uh earlier do you
uh oh well there was one thing that was
mentioned a gentleman on the board i
don't remember his name
um but uh said something about um
a a wall being built and i followed this
plan
from the get-go and the wall that he's
referring to that's being built is
one that houses like the gate to the
driveway and the gate to
where the pool is that brick wall and
that's been all along and in fact i
think it really improves the look of the
house quite a bit because it brings
everything into proportion um and so
that's not a new thing at all
so i think that was expressed as like a
surprise that they would go ahead and
build on something like that but
um i don't think that they're doing it
out of turn by following the actual
you know those were in the plans all
along i've been following it
since you know since the beginning
since the beginning and since there were
other plans that were presented for this
house
right all right mrs lipkin thank you
very much
i appreciate your uh testimony and
coming down and spending time
to let us know what you think thank you
all right mr miller thank you mr chair
uh we're also pleased to have the
support of
uh the immediate neighbors uh to this
home
in the furman family and i would ask
that ms berman who i understand is
is here and prepared to speak if the
furmans could be heard for a few minutes
certainly ms fuhrman can you hear me
if um if mr furman could raise her
virtual hand because i don't see a name
that matches
but there are two phone numbers
i'm gonna allow those phone numbers to
talk in the case that may be one of them
do we have ms fuhrman can you hear us
hello jill fuhrman yes
i'm joe all right jill this is bobby
hall i'm the chairman of the bees app
i'd like for you to
raise your right hand to be sworn before
you testify would you please do so
yeah do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give this evening to the
board will be the truth
and nothing but the truth yes
thank you very much all right tell tell
us what your
perspective is on this uh application
okay well it's like this
i was walking down the street today and
i was thinking to myself
what a lovely street we have it's full
of tradition
due to the uniqueness of all of the
differing styles of homes that we have
here
no cookie cutters like some of the other
communities we have
around this area how lucky we are that
the shops came along
to continue the tradition of adding
another lovely home
that will fit right into our community
we want to support and welcome the show
excuse me bless you heard me
there's all right all right
very good uh i appreciate your taking
the time to give us your perspective
on uh this case
thank you mr sperman thank you
mr chairman yes thank you uh chairman b
hall the final slide
uh well i recognize that landscaping
obviously
is the province of the tree and garden
commission i think it still
bears upon consideration of the issues
at play here for this committee
and we've had mksk dan beer do a
rendering
of mature landscaping on the site that
we're prepared to stand by and do
to try to address the few neighbors who
have expressed their opposition
uh to this project and and um
i just wanted to present this rendering
as we did the previous a previous
similar rendering
to give people comfort and and certainly
to state that we will take this to
bexley tree and garden
we will take into account any comments
or thoughts that neighbors have
to address their concerns we will
continue to try to work
in a conciliatory fashion on the
landscaping issue
in order to to address
concerns that may be raised but what i
would submit to you uh
in a very brief conclusion is that the
shahs are fortunate
uh that um though this situation has
been foisted upon them
uh they're fortunate that the expert
evidence in the form of mr jones mr
sullivan
uh and mr coulter all agree
all of the testimony has been not only
that this house is
appropriate but that any change to be
made to the roof for
instance i think the words of mr coulter
were quote not going to gain anything it
literally will be
an arbitrary act that will make no
difference in the appearance of the
height of the home
and yet subject not only the shahs to
great expense and concerns about the
safety and integrity of the structure
but also this street will have inflicted
upon it
months more of construction that may
create dangerous situations
in and of itself then likewise
the lay testimony the neighbors
immediately continuous to this house who
are most directly affected by this
recognize this as a as a positive
attribute for the neighborhood
that satisfies the standards that guide
you for whether it's appropriate for the
neighborhood
and of course it remains not even as
high
as the home directly across the street
situated on a large estate lot
like this one is and so we would ask
that you please listen to
your expert staff your expert
consultants
and we would ask that this uh request to
amend the certificate of appropriateness
for these changes
uh be granted with that we're certainly
happy to answer any
remaining questions but we do sincerely
appreciate your time and reconsideration
this evening on the whole record both
what we presented tonight
and what was before you in january thank
you once again
thank you miller um i think i'd like
just
to uh see if there's any uh budding in
the
audience that is uh for or against
this application uh and see if
we need to listen to any additional
testimony or evidence so karen if
you could if anybody in the audience
wishes to speak
and to present new evidence if you spoke
last time
we have a record of what you said we
were aware of the
testimony if there's new information or
somebody that did not speak last time
uh we're certainly uh glad to hear from
anybody
so um we have uh david weston
okay mr weston can you hear me
i can my wife is here with me jody as
well okay joni do you both
wish to testify yes yes all right well
if you would both raise your right hands
and and be sworn do you swear both of
you
or affirm that any testimony you give
this evening will be the truth
and nothing but the truth we do yes
thank you very much please tell us uh
first of all where
you reside and uh so we can make sure
that what you have standing
and then what your position is uh on
this matter
and uh chairman b hall are we gonna be
are we gonna be limiting the
time limit for each participant tonight
well
i haven't heard how many there are but
we've been generally trying to stay
under three minutes for each speaker
i have three hands raised at this point
that
doesn't mean there won't be more but
whatever the pleasure of
the board i can grab my phone and do a
timer
and we have a favorite mr marshall we
have mr mark mr
arnold as well do we not
so mr arnold mr young and mr weston have
their hands raised
okay so mr weston mrs weston uh
please tell us where you live again i'm
sorry i missed it there
yes sir 399 south columbia avenue we are
across
the street and down one house from
424 and we have a wonderful excellent
view
directly of the size of this uh this
property
okay beautiful please tell us what you
think about this matter
um since the january 2021 visa meeting i
have sat through the most recent visa
meeting at arb meetings
during the last arb meeting it was
brought to our attention that the city
is putting in new protocols into place
all because of 424 south columbia i
understand that the city wants a
consistent place from which to measure
roof height
but you don't need to put new protocols
in place if you make 424 south columbia
comply with the drawings
that were approved back in 2018 as we've
been asking since the beginning
all we are asking is that the city
enforce what has already been approved
by multiple boards
in 2018. during the last fees app
meeting the
overwhelming theme of the evening from
the livingston cassidy projects to the
saint charles parking lot
was that they needed to be good
neighbors and work with neighbors and
listen to them
why is that same concept not being
applied here instead of working with us
we have been met with lawyers what we
haven't been met with
is any attempt to work out a compromise
or find a way to make this work for
everyone
the january 2021 b-zap meeting mr miller
stated that the shaw's had untrained
eyes and could not see that the roof
height was too high
i would argue that the neighbors have
had to endure watching this house being
built over the last three years
also have untrained eyes these neighbors
assumed the final build would look
relatively the same as the approved
plans including a roof line that was
relatively in line
with the neighboring houses to the north
and south then again the so-called
trained eyes of members of the 2018 arb
have the same assumption
during november 2020 arb related to this
house miss
tony the current chairperson of the arb
who is also an
expert staff that should be listened to
according to mr miller
she stated this this is a direct quote
i'm listening to all the details and all
the things that don't match up to the
drawings
but my biggest problem with this house
and the way it was built
is that it feels like a monster the
feeling was this house was only going to
be a couple of feet taller than the
houses next to it
and when i look at it now this house
feels six or seven feet taller than the
two houses next to it especially this
house to the south of it
it looks like it is in a hole and i just
have a problem with
with again with the size of this it
feels to me that the
grade was never taken down to the grade
what the previous house was built on
and then the house was built three feet
taller and between the two we ended up
with a house five or six feet taller
than what i expected
whatever your decision here today it is
important to know that those that are
were instrumental in approving these
plans three years ago do not believe
what is currently built matches what
they approved
the current members of the arb in
november 2020 voted unanimously to
recommend that bzap not issue a
certificate of appropriateness
based on the revised architectural plan
describing the house as currently built
to sum up we are here again only asking
to have 424 south columbia comply with
the plans
that were presented and approved in 2018
nothing more
the changes are architecturally
significant
thank you all right thank you very much
i appreciate it um
let's see you said we had another hand
thank you for your testimony thank you
for coming and taking the time to give
us your perspective by the way folks
the westerns yeah actually do i have a
minute to be able
sure you're you're a separate uh
taxpayer as they say thank you thank you
mr chairman so
you know to mr sooty's comment earlier
today about the uh
really what this board is needing to do
is compare the air b to the
uh what the air b approved in 2018 to
what is built
uh and see if it's substantially
different i
to me and i i to many folks it looks
like this house was literally grabbed
from the top from the roof and pulled up
three feet
and if you look at the differences in
reality from what the picture is
it's a distorted picture and it has
completely distorted the perspective of
this house and that
is what is substantially different uh
you know i i
have no issue with the you know the the
40-foot line it is it is the fact that
is substantially
out of uh perspective of what it should
be um
as far as mr colter's comments earlier
uh i
i want to point out that that mr miller
used the fact that mr colter was a
chairman of the arb
in worthington i think that is awesome i
do really wish that you would also
listen to your chairman of your arb here
in bexley who
uh as as my wife just quoted her from
from a couple of months ago i i think
that probably holds more weight than
than it's been in air b chairman from
outside of the city
he also mentioned uh issues of uh
damage to the roof uh with the roof open
i are sorry
um uh you know
that the roof open you know this was
supposed to be done from the original
uh oh so with the roof open uh according
to miss bokar
this book or no work was supposed to be
done other than changing and getting
this house back to the original
uh issues before this a before the air b
and now the b zap
had approved any further movement so
therefore there should not be
additional damage to the inside of the
house because there was supposed to be
no work done
over the last what now six months or so
but we all know that that's
not accurate as you see uh work being
done there every single day
um they noted that the lance uh
that uh we would have to have issues
with trucks being here we've had trucks
for three years
we've had three houses built we've had
two houses built
since this house started and have
finished we we're very familiar with
with the construction on the street
we're going to have another one most
likely built here in a few
a few months and uh so that i don't
think that one holds water
um you know it's i appreciate mr miller
bringing in a couple of the neighbors
uh that were right around the the 424
house i really wish that the shots had
brought in other neighbors
well you know instead of bringing in
lawyers to the other folks
we would have really appreciated to have
a conversation with the shaw's to try to
be able to work some of this stuff out
and it's a little disappointing that
that didn't happen um as far as the
miss shaw uh quoting that she had not
heard of this
uh did she just first heard of issues in
june 2020
i know for a fact that we have been
repeatedly communicating with the city
and miss bokor and miss um miss rose
since well before june of 2020 i know
that uh miss
yach who has already provided testimony
mentioned something about 20
late 2018 early 2019 having
conversations i know that we actually
had a special
or an arb meeting i'm sorry another b's
at meeting that ended up getting
canceled
that we were bringing up issues in so
those were well before june 2020 so i
just wanted to bring that one up as
uh as a concern of of timing of all of
this and then
to the last thing there mr uh miller
mentioned that
uh the shaw's we're gonna talk about uh
legal action that
that the shah's may or may not have
taken against the original contractor
that was uh miss mitchell had mentioned
that in the last air b
still never heard anything about that so
again i
i agree that the shaw's got taken over
by their contractor it was a bad
contractor
but what are they doing about it what
have they done to to
that's still not my problem that they
had a bad contractor it still goes back
on to the homeowner to deal with that
whatever the costs are those should be a
suit against the original contractor for
not following the rules
that's all i have thank you mr chairman
let me ask you one question mr weston
yes what about the fact or the testimony
that we heard
earlier that the the house that must be
the house
immediately to your south
is about just shy of 40 feet
at the ridge line so that house was
built well before the
the regulations came into place uh for
baxley for one
okay but the the regulations that apply
to that apply to this house it's still
40 feet in that
uh that is correct so and i have no
problem with that i have no problem with
the height again
you know as as we've been talking along
if you look at the house
it's it is architecturally significantly
different than what was approved
and it is made it makes that house look
like it is distorted
and not in proportion and therefore
does not fit what a house in this area
should be now if
if they had built uh you know if every
house on the street was 40 feet
and every house was proportionately good
great
um but i i don't see how the house
across the street has any
uh significance in this argument
okay mr weston i'd have to disagree with
that i mean it's directly across from
the other house
and it is almost 40 feet at the ridge
line and we're talking about a house
whose roof ridge line is less than that
so
i i mean i understand that yeah question
do you have a question i'm just trying
to understand
are we here to weigh anecdotal feeling
or are we here to weigh the compliance
with code
and that's where i think i got stuck the
last time
it's easy to kind of get go down the
rabbit hole of all the things that we
don't like about something
but what's our what's our role here
so i guess that's my question to you mr
b hall absolutely miss miss
mitchell uh to answer that you're you're
absolutely right i think mr suti
actually mentioned that
we're not here to argue code and and i
agree with that
the house is under 40 feet i'm not
arguing that what what we're here to
argue
or what we're here to ask is that the
city
enforce the certificate of
appropriateness
for the the that was approved in 2018
and that certificate of appropriateness
was approved based on the original
drawings that were
uh provided in 2018 the fact that the
house is no longer
in compliance with those drawings is the
issue that we have and though
and note that non-compliance has created
a situation where you have a house that
is significantly different
not only from the drawings but also
significantly different in
in appearance from what was acceptable
to
uh the neighbors when there was no
objection to this in 2018
because because again the um the drawing
was in proportion well let me ask you
let me ask you a question this is bob b
hall again
is it the window design is it the side
door
design i mean there are three or four
things that
yeah sure sir yes sir it's when you
like i said if you just took the house
from the original drawings which
actually i believe these landscaping
ones are very closer to the original
drawings than the real ones and if you
actually just take that roof
and just lift up on the roof it is
basically what happened to this house so
the difference between the first floor
windows and the second floor windows is
now about
twice to three times the the distance
that it was supposed to be originally
the the roof itself uh is
uh several the roof line is several feet
taller than what what it was originally
and so the whole house
it architecturally uh has a completely
different appearance than what was
originally approved hey miss beaucard
could you go up to the original plans
for me
where it would show what the the what
that um
original um do you know what i'm getting
at i'm sorry
i sure do but i'm a little bit of a
point getting there there we go
so this is the original
proposed sketch the very first one um
this one um and i think brian jones is
on the call as well
this is his original concept sketch
this is as built um
actually i can see that just fine can
you scroll down to the
the text though for me and zoom next
yep right there so we do we have the
ridge height change from 36
6 to 39 3 okay
maximal allowable is 40. and then
do we have so we're really just arguing
we're not arguing we're we're discussing
i know
right i just corrected myself we're
discussing
the architectural difference between the
top picture versus the as built and uh
miss
cunningham can i ask you a quick
question
um
does a homeowner have the legal right to
come before
bezap with a request to amend a previous
a previous plan that has been approved
with these unique circumstances did are
they within their
their rights to come before the zap and
say hey we recognize this
and we'd like um consideration for this
are we are we legally allowed are they
legally allowed to do that
yes any any applicant who has an
approval
can always come back and ask with an
administration of that approval in this
case
um the certificate of appropriateness is
like a permit
so they came in with a plan said this is
what we're going to build
and then as it turns out it is not what
they did
so they came back to ask for an
amendment you're not required to give
them an amendment
if you don't then it would be up to the
city to make a determination of whether
they'll
enforce what was originally proposed or
and that would be the alternative is
that the homeowner would have to
comply with what was originally proposed
for us
in in this instance what mr city was
expressing and i think what
what the city has tried to express is
it's not a question of needing
a variance from the what the code
requires
that there's i think there's no dispute
that they meet what would be otherwise
allowed in the zoning classification
so that's one thing that's a zoning code
requirement if they didn't meet those
they'd be needing a variance but they
don't they meet all those
so then the issue becomes a certificate
of appropriateness is an architectural
approval of exterior elevations of
property
that's really what it is so when
somebody comes in for an architectural
approval for a certificate of
appropriateness they are saying to you
this is what i want to build this is
what it's going to look like and it
went in this case it went to arb
originally but it really was
boarded zoning and planning who made the
final determination of what that
architecture looks like
if that is not complied with there's one
of two things you can do
you either make it comply
or you request an amendment and when you
request an amendment at that point in
time the issue
is not whether it's in compliance with
code because it is
the issue is at that point in time
um is it is it architectural
are the changes that happened are so
architecturally significant
that we should enforce the original or
is it reasonable to elect to allow
something else to occur um
because it is not it it doesn't change
the essential architectural character
of the structure or whatever it is so
you
you raise a clear point for me in terms
of reasonableness
um and then what that impact has on
like future because i remember we were
always supposed to look at each
individual case
but when we're setting a potential
precedent
by a decision that we make that
weak bzap gives you an approval to do
this
something else happens and you just come
back to be zap as long as you're within
code
and ask for forgiveness
in essence no an amendment you're asking
an amendment right um with these
changes right um so just for the general
public here
that who may or may not know what
catherine
cunningham's role is here she's the
outside counsel for the city of bexley
on
zoning and planning issues she's an
expert
practitioner in that area i'm not sure
i'm allowed to say that but that's
that's the truth anyway uh so
uh and then and then what i've got one
other question and then certainly
i think in the original presentation
i also brought up that the applicant
could go back to arb
with the current drawings
and ask for a recommendation is that is
that
factual or no well um
it's really up to this board what what
you have before you there have been
changes made since what happened to arb
at arb but what happens when
because um in this case there were
variances um there was a variance where
i think there were two variances
requested one was granted relating to
the pool the other one
you members may recall i wasn't involved
in those hearings but there was
one requested for a circular drive which
was denied
so there was a variance granted the way
the bexley city code
is written is that if there is a
variance
requested as part of an application even
in a residential neighborhood
that the decision maker on that is
b zap it goes to arb
first uh your process is that when it
gets filed it goes to arb
and arb looks at it um and makes and can
make a recommendation they can do they
can make a recommendation
to you they can make no recommendation
and it moves forward
anyway um so in
that in that case originally back in
2018 i think when this came forward
there was a recommendation from arb
as it related to a certificate of
appropriateness but the
issuer of the certificate of
appropriateness was this board was be
said
got it okay so when it came back for an
amendment to the certificate of
appropriateness
since you are the issuing authority the
decision-making authority is yours
it went through arb and it came out
without a recommendation
really um i was at that meeting there
there was not
really consensus for conditions or
anything so it comes up to you
from them with a recommendation that the
original certificate of appropriateness
be enforced there were there have been
changes made since then
by the property owner um i think jason
that's
part of what jason's why i think there
was some confusion last time too because
changes have been made
and we're being made at the meeting so i
think jason did a staff report so that
he could summarize for you
really what remained an issue what has
been complied with
uh and what the in terms of the
certificate of appropriateness as it
relates to what's being asked before
this board you're down to four issues
for compliance others the recommendation
is
since the approving authority in that
case was tree and public gardens that
they be the approving authority
also although you could take that on
should you choose to do so
all right thank you thank you question
can i ask one more question mr b hall
well you can i'd kind of like to let mr
arnold uh since he's been waiting
patiently too
and the other person in the audience and
that way we'll know all their issues
and then we can ask our questions as a
panel if you don't mind
no sure absolutely i didn't realize
there was someone still waiting
um i have three people still waiting i
have mr arnold
okay mr arnold
can you hear me you are muted sir
sir being here okay no
not you now he is not okay all right uh
mcdonald if you would enter your
appearance and and
let us know who you represent again just
because of the you know i want the
record to be clear for people that might
not have
heard last month's uh uh session or two
months ago session
of course mr b hall uh thank you i
represent carol and alan
ratner they live two homes to the north
of the subject home and as you recall i
did participate uh
in the last meeting with the background
beach scene
which i've now been able to eliminate
first thing i think i want to talk about
try to uh
jump to your benefit sir
i can put it back up if it helps uh
you know we heard uh from mr coulter on
behalf of the shahs
he's a as i understood him to be the uh
in the arp in worthington and
as mr weston touched on
there were no opinions solicited from
the bexley arb members
because they have a completely different
view from mr coulter
back on november 5th 2020 i wrote down
some of the quotes
of what that six member board said about
this
house and since we're confining
ourselves to the architectural
presentation and not
code i think it's important to know what
the architects
think about this from an architectural
perspective
one said and these are quotes my biggest
problem with this house is it feels like
a monster
another one it's a monstrosity another
one
a monstrously high ridgeline another one
this house feels like it's six or seven
feet taller than the house next to it it
makes the house to the south of it look
like it's in a hole
with that kind of background the arb
voted unanimously
it wasn't a divided vote to deny this
homeowner's request to modify the
certificate of appropriateness
now you have to wonder why they
described it that way even though it
meets code
if it's appropriate for this
neighborhood this board then considered
the same issues on january 28th
where they sought the same amendment
that was denied
by a six to two vote we are here
today because sometime between january
28th and february
uh february 25th i'm sorry february 5th
i think
uh somebody apparently on behalf of the
shaw's
uh contacted as mr shikh has described
it inappropriately
about the bizap vote that had happened
earlier
now we don't know what was said we don't
know when it occurred
but i think the fact that somebody would
do that
or the shaws would ask someone to do
that
kind of suggests what blanks to which
they're willing to go
to avoid uh not getting their
certificate of appropriateness it's
clear they're willing to go outside
appropriate courses
just like as i think mr levine mentioned
earlier
their continued construction of block
walls
knowing that it's supposed to be fences
i know that
mr b hall suggested that we're not
asking forgiveness here and it's a
foreign amendment but i think in this
situation
uh what happened what is happening here
is a request for forgiveness
when you continue to build a
non-conformity to the certificate of
appropriateness
in in the end and i know that uh mr
miller said the last time we were
together this was not another bite at
the apple but this
is this is the third bite at the apple
to deal with what the monstrosity is as
recognized by the arb
and i would submit to you that the arb
approval process and the bzap approval
process is in place in part
to assure that a home like this is
compatible with the existing
neighborhood
now insofar as the home across the
street being of like height
it is across the street the issue is
really
the relative height of this building
this home to the homes that are adjacent
to it
and it's a relative issue the issue
isn't how high it is
the issue is how high it looks relative
to the other ridge lines next to it
and that's what the problem is here and
fixing 20
25 of the other 30 infirmities is not
going to solve that
now we heard from mr coulter uh
with a basket of reasons why this
amendment should be granted
we heard that the cost is a hundred
thousand dollars well
i would submit i don't know what it cost
to build this house but that's probably
two or three percent of the whole uh
cost
to construct this facility you know we
hear that boards can fall we hear that
there'll be damage if it rains as if
nobody takes precautions
to prevent those sorts of things from
happening and finally we hear
the builder gets blamed but there's no
architectural exception
for builders who make mistakes or are
rogue
we have architectural protections for
that reason whether the builder does it
or not
now we heard from uh ms solomon um i
would submit to you that although
i don't think what she had to say was as
mr turner i think
uh said doesn't have anything to do with
what's happening here
if the shaw home was built on a 12-acre
lot like she had we probably
wouldn't be here the neighborhood does
matter
i would ask the board to do a few things
before voting tonight first
uh respectfully and perhaps for the sake
of transparency i
wonder if mr could share with us
who inappropriately contacted him and
what was said
and second maybe you can help all of us
understand the point of having an arb in
a bees app if their approvals can be
ignored
if a builder i'm sorry
i'd be happy to clarify that
having to clarify what um there seemed
to be a little bit of confusion with the
arb
denying the certificate of
appropriateness that wasn't
the case the arb was voting on a
recommendation to the board of zoning
and planning
and the arb's motion did not include
any conditions for modifications or
changes
that's what they voted on and most
likely why
the vote was not unanimously to approve
so
it was not it was not
it was not denied it was simply not
approved
as it was motioned well it's a
distinction it's a decision that doesn't
make any difference because what they
didn't get was approval
but but we also have conditions at
this point and i'd also like to comment
on the construction
i don't believe that they were simply
constructing you know on non-conformity
we were working with the applicants and
and some of these things do take time
and we also have a structure that's
exposed to the weather and we
are are always willing to work with
applicants to dry in a structure
while these details are worked out
so a lot of those items that they were
working on were
in conformance with a plan but there are
minor
minor details that we're not that we
have been working behind the scenes with
staff
and with their architects to address all
of these items and that's where we are
today
well all due respect i don't think the
erb describes his home as monstrous
because of minor detail
let me conclude by saying this certainly
i think
that it is inappropriate to make the
neighbors
with the exceptions of the apparent few
who want to continue with the
shaws uh their opinions
that what they have to look at every day
should be respected
and one last thing because i know the
shaws have been
uh being painted as victims here uh
they've already threatened
suit against one of the neighbors so
they're not coming into the neighborhood
with open arms
as they would like you to believe i
think he's sure they've threatened suit
i'm sorry how do you know they
threatened you was it your clients
yes are you trying to see your clients
okay
a client not the renders no not the
renderers okay
how do i raise my hair right here okay
mr arnold i appreciate you're coming
again and
not repeating last mr chairman mr
chairman for one second mr arnold
brought my
brought my name up into this um on at
least two occasions
um mr arnold um
everything was on the up and up um i
will not reveal the name of the
individual because the individual is a
former client of mine
and i have to respect attorney-client
privilege
under this particular circumstance i
think the first call
i heard the only thing that he had to
say and that was
that uh the shaws were quote good people
i said
i trust you believe that and then i
reported that to the chairman and miss
rose
that is all in public record so um if
you want to insinuate
anything on that i would just love to
clarify that i did everything that i
thought was
most appropriate for this i could not
jump to anybody
nor speak to anybody's intent for that
individual reaching out
um but it is imperative that that phone
call did not have any material impact
uh whatsoever well i appreciate that
ryan i wasn't suggesting anything
inappropriate
thank you sir just wanted to make sure
that i appreciate that
thank you for watching as well thank you
did you want the shaws to respond or
where winning now who's in charge of
this meeting everybody
everybody can talk to me
in the audience yet because i thought
you said there were three
and i thought yeah we still do we have
stuart young
okay now i'd ask everybody this in a
situation like this
if you would like to talk even if you're
a board member
i'd like for you to address the chair
and get
permission so that there's a traffic cop
involved in this situation
and then i will let you certainly talk
in the appropriate time and moment but
if we could
do so and by by addressing the the chair
then the chair can do his job as the
as the director of activities so we're
not stepping all over each other's feet
here
so with that in mind all right ms boker
please pick one of the people that have
their hands up um the next person is
stuart young
okay mr chairman mr chairman yes sorry
mr chairman yes ma'am if you could give
me the opportunity this is like a shot i
just want to respond to two comments
that were made by the westerns
um just because i think it's important
you're gonna get a chance to
test you're going to get a chance to
respond to all the comments
as soon as they're done because you're
the proponent the proponent goes first
the opponents come next and then the
proponent has rebuttal
okay wonderful thank you you're welcome
mr
young can you hear me i can mr chairman
uh if you would raise your right hand
and be sworn please
my right time is raised thank you do you
swear or affirm that any testimony you
give this evening will be the truth and
nothing but the truth
i do thank you very much can you tell us
your perspective
first of all where do you live i live at
435 south columbia
it is uh cathy corner
to opposite the uh 424 south colombia
okay so you live next door to 419. that
is correct to the center okay
very good thank you sir i appreciate
that mr young tell us what you think
about this
application before i commence mr
chairman may
similar to mr sheik i have a question
regarding timeline
the height of the house
at 36 foot six
was described in the architectural plan
that was submitted by
and approved by the arb and visa in
december of sorry the architectural plan
that basically
details the height at 36
feet six inches is dated december 2017
the architectural plan dated
april 2018 a date before
construction had even commenced
reflects an increased height
of 39 foot 3 inches
and that later architectural plan
is more in tune with what has been built
in terms of it reflects for example the
detached
lanai whereas in the original plan
it was built adjoining the house
okay mr cool to describe the change in
height as a result of an
errant contractor why was no one aware
of the change in height
if that architectural plan of april 2018
reflects an increased height and why was
that architectural plan
not brought back before the arb and b
zap
for that change so let me direct that
more or less a procedural question and
factual question
to either ms rose or ms boker
i would say that there was not a request
for
a change in plan that showed a height
difference or it certainly would have
gone back to the board because that's
not something that
staff could simply approve so
i believe that there were some
plans submitted with changes that
weren't requested
we did work with an applicant on a ridge
ridge line
change on the uh accessory pool house
but but that was never requested and
when we had questions come up and we
started
digging and comparing plans we came
across some discrepancies
and that's when you know we reached out
to the owners and we reached out to the
architects and
started asking questions because it
wasn't making sense to us
so ms rose thank you for that so the
contractor was not the only one that was
aware of the increase in height because
the architectural plans also reflected
the increase in ridge height
and that was april 2018. and at that
time we were working with
the contractor so whatever he's
requested of the
architect i do not know i was not
involved nor was karen involved with
those
discussions okay i thank you for that
mr chairman yes sir please yes if i may
commence
please as you are aware the city staff
prepared a report in 2020 that listed
approximately 20
unauthorized changes to the
architectural plan that was recommended
by the arb and approved by bisap
in february of 2018 by far the most
egregious unauthorized
change was to the ridge hike in february
2018
the submitted architectural plan made
public and on which
the arb recommended a certificate of
appropriateness be granted for this
property
included a rich height illustration and
miss rose or ms broco if you could
upload
sp1 with that rich high illustration
that depicts the rich height of this new
build
will be comparable to that of the
neighboring houses to the north and the
south
further in last month's presentation to
be zap by the honorable gentleman from
vortes
in defense of the grading on this
property having not been built up
reference was made to the console map
that was included in the approved
architectural plan from 2018.
the contour lines detail ground
elevations on this and the neighboring
properties to the north and south
given the architectural plan include
included ground elevations
the accuracy of which was cited by the
applicants
i would contend that it was therefore
not unreasonable for the arb
committee members as well as those
neighbors with standing to assume that
the only rich high illustration
provided in the architectural plan was
an
accurate depiction of the height of the
house to be built
in summary this illustration became the
de facto ridge height comparison to the
neighboring houses to the north and the
south
that the city requires and was
subsequently relied upon by the arb
in their deliberations in 2018.
as we can see see today what has
actually been built does not conform to
the rich high illustration that was
submitted quite the opposite
in 2018 had the illustration in the
architectural plan being
an accurate depiction of the roof hike
in relation to the neighboring houses
those who were standing
would not have been silent but would
have been quite vocal in expressing
their displeasure as we are today
and have been since the roof went up in
november of 2018.
i would also contend the same could be
said of the arb committee members given
there was no comment as to rich height
during the 2018 meeting
the city of bexley in recognizing the
need to balance the benefits of
preserving bexley's existing
qualities and the characteristics of the
residential districts within the city
established the arb and tasked it with
ensuring the compatibility
of new developments that the ridge
height
and the compatibility of the revised
architectural plan
as submitted and built remains an issue
was further re-emphasized
when in november 2020 the arb in
discharging their responsibility under
the city's ordinance voted unanimously
that they could not recommend that a
certificate of appropriateness be issued
in addition only last month this
committee voted not to grant a
significant or brokenness
as stated this committee has not been
asked to grant a variance
but to issue a certificate of
appropriateness based on the
architecture and its compatibility to
that of its neighbors
a significant component of the
compatibility is rich height
so in concluding the question i would
ask is
should besat decide to overrule the
arb's recommendation and his own ruling
last month
and further not make the lowering of the
ridge height so that it conforms to the
approved ridge height illustration in
2018
a condition of any approval because it
is under the codified limits of 40 feet
are you not setting a precedent a
precedent that states you can build to
any height
irrespective of what is submitted and
approved by the arb
provided it is under the codified limit
of 40 feet
even the city of bexley is obligated to
treat every resident equitably
with rich height no longer a fact to be
considered by the arb when commenting on
an architectural structure
it's compatibility with the neighboring
houses
i would contend the arb is now redundant
as it is
it could be argued any retrospective
approval of the approximately 30
unauthorized changes as described in the
staff report
with the granting of a certificate of
appropriateness today
sets the precedent going forward of
build now and receive approval later for
every bexy residence
and with that i thank you mr chairman
thank you mr young
i appreciate it karen are there any
other hands in the
uh audience yes
um angela angela can you hear me
um i'm actually here with my neighbor
and so he's gonna speak
first and be sworn in and then i'll go
second thank you
all right and who's your neighbor please
uh this is don marchner i live at 2250
briden
okay mr martiner would you raise your
right hand
and be sworn you swear or affirm any
testimony that you give this evening
will be the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you please tell us your
perspective on this
matter um
frankly i've uh taken a look at it from
afar
i guess i've seen the notices come
through and
and have followed it intermittently over
the last couple years
uh angela uh
came and talked to me over the weekend i
took a walk
on sunday uh to take a look at the
at the site in the house um i've got a
extensive design and construction
background i've been in the in the
business for 35 years and
and started as an architect so i've got
some
understanding i guess i'll say and and
uh
uh can speak to the both from a design
and construction perspective so
that being said uh you know again i i've
never really i
looked at the project before i walked
over there spent an hour
talking to the neighbors and and uh
looking at the site and
and purely from a design and
construction perspective
um you know and i think
i'm listening to all of this i think
everybody has a lot of great information
and opinions but
it feels again uh from my simple
perspective that
you know the the house is out of is out
of
uh scale with the houses on each side of
and along the street
especially on that side of columbia
um and i think it's you know it's pretty
simple to see that
you know the grade the original grade of
the of the site
um and what's there now is is pretty
substantially different
i don't know the specifics of what it
was originally versus
what it was now or what it is now uh so
you know the height of the the ridge
line of the roof
along with the additional grade and
raising up of the
of the floor slab or the the ground
floor
slab of the or ground floor of the of
the house itself
um you know it's pretty substantially
different than than the houses on each
side of the
of uh of the property now whether that's
appropriate or not i guess it's
obviously what we're trying to decide
but
you can really see you can really see
that the scale is
is is i mean it's out of scale yeah we
can see that
let me ask you a question uh is the
original drawing that was submitted and
approved
uh in scale with the house to the right
and the left
well i i guess that's that's kind of the
question i you know if
you know again i've i've not necessarily
done
residential work like this in the past
but um
you know when you're content when you're
looking at this from a contextual
perspective
you know i think and i've even seen it
in some of the other other
projects that that are coming before the
arb and and
um and you know the review board process
you tend to want to show the houses
you know on each side of the of the
development just to to to give it some
context and
and you know if you walk past this site
now
uh you can see that i don't i don't know
that that was necessarily the case and
again obviously i didn't see any of the
original drawings or the process
or if it showed a significant grade
change or
elevation of the ground floor at the
beginning of the
of the design process and if it showed
it
being let's say three feet higher or two
feet higher or whatever that whatever it
is now
you know that that rate that uh
increase in elevation plus the the
taller
uh height of the roof you know
substantially
affects the the you know the context of
the house
in relation to the the neighboring
properties you know again i don't know
i don't know if uh if the grading was
was addressed originally and and talked
about i know
i think one of the slides i saw said
that
you know the things that were changed
that were that were noticed to be
different
was grading and again so i don't know uh
if if that was a mistake and it and it
carried through from the beginning
till now or you know again if it was
something that the contractor
did incorrectly and it never got picked
up again i'm just
i'm just giving my two cents and what i
see based on a walk around of the
property
all right we appreciate your uh time and
your thoughts
as uh uh the lady next year i didn't
catch the name yet
but angela
angela
angela would you raise your right hand
you swear you swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give the board
this evening will be the truth
and nothing but the truth i do all right
uh tell us where do you live
my address is 2240 brighton road and i
do have
uh standing okay
all right two two four zero brighton
road okay so you're around the corner
that is correct okay good that just
helps us get a perspective on it
uh so the back of your house looks at
the back of the
subject house no looks at the side
looks at the side okay all right
well yeah i got you right but you're are
you on the corner of ryden
i am not i am uh the third house in from
columbia okay the third house
east correct
okay correct all right very good so
you're
you're in line with the backyard i see
what you're saying you look at the side
yard yes i got it okay
ms york tell us what you think
i first reached out to the city in
november of 2018
and um i think that we all can agree
that
we want this to be um
completed one way or the other um
there's been
a lot of he said and she said there's
been
um lack of communication um
between the homeowner and the neighbors
the city
um and the neighbors um the bottom line
is is that i'm a parent
and you know i teach my children that
you know rules are to be fouled
and actions have consequences and rules
are
for everyone to follow not just the ones
that choose to do so
um you know city has these guidelines
and regulations for a reason
and i understand that the new contractor
had to come
in and get the house settled but they
have done
more work than that was approved the
home
applicant is now asking for approval not
on drawings that have changed
but actually the building that has
already been completed they've put the
cart before the horse
and um you know the only letters we got
in the mail
in regarding the variances were for
circle drive and the pool
we never received anything about the
accessory pool house
which is um over the 20-foot guidelines
as a typical garage
this is the picture from my master
bedroom so you see our garage
the damascus house you see the hires
house and then you see
um the new build it's significantly
different
and i guess at the end of the day is
that um we're the neighbors we're the
ones that are going to see this
every day and live with it and i
understand that you as a board
are here to enforce on the code but
if we make exceptions we're opening up
a whole can of worms down the road that
anyone can do whatever they want
and i guess i i just i enjoy living in
this community
and i just want we all to be on a
level playing field that we're all
treated the same not
just if you are able to afford a you
know heavy hitter lawyer
um my request is that we bring an
arbitrator and see if the neighbors and
the homeowner
can work and come up with some sort of
resolution um
and hopefully you know this project can
be completed
this summer so we can finish a
three-year build thank you for your time
thank you ms yock all right
um any other hands karen
um no i do not see any more hands at
this time
not in the audience not in the attendees
all right thank you
um mr miller do you have
any um rebuttal
that you'd like to give us either
through the shaw's or whatever
got to lose mr miller you might be
sorry about that uh i do mr chair i
i recognize that the board has been
exceptionally
generous and kind with their time and
we'll try not to impose
too much further upon it uh briefly i'd
like you to hear from mrs
shaw and then i'll provide some closing
thoughts and comments in response to
what we've heard
thank you nishan
yes hi thank you um i just wanted to
respond to and i apologize i'm not i
don't recall who brought
these up but just some things i wanted
to clarify um
some comments that were brought up uh
one of them being
you know early on it was asked about the
south
uh wall that was built that built that
wall actually
was built prior to sullivan working with
us
and as soon as like i mentioned earlier
we met with sullivan and he kind of
you know brought to our attention like
there's a there's a several things that
we need to
to fix we stop building that wall
immediately in fact if you go to our
property it's half built
um so as soon as we realized that things
were occurring
without our knowledge or changes were
occurring it was stopped i mean that
wall is a
clear sign of we need to stop what we're
doing
um so i just wanted to address that
because that was a question that was
asked to me
the other thing was um you know
everybody is entitled to their opinions
and i respect and appreciate
them but one thing that was said that
was incorrect was
we as a family my husband and i we have
never sued anybody
ever so i i'm not sure where that
information came from
um but i just wanted to clarify that as
well
um i think the allegation was that you
threatened
to sue somebody that's incorrect also
not that you sued yeah no but we've
never threatened to sue anybody
okay that's fine i just wanted to
clarify that
and and so uh okay
chairman b hall you know
we've listened uh respectfully obviously
to those neighbors those neighbors who
do disagree
uh with the appropriateness
but honestly i would i would commend to
you from our presentation materials from
january we have not just mr jones sketch
but the actual approved elevation from
2018
and from 2020 and i think if the members
compare these
i do respectfully disagree uh to the
person who expressed that the changes
are
architecturally significant these are
incredibly similar
uh drawings and in fact that's why as ms
shaw said
the only exterior work that has taken
place since sullivan builders got
involved
is try to try to restore certain
elements
that were approved again we're gratified
to have the support
of the most immediate neighbors the
actual contiguous
landowners to this as well as because
you know and miss cunningham would
advise you your decision needs to be
based upon
evidence not feelings or suggest or
suggestions uh or subjective thoughts
now we have uh miss bokar recommending
approval mr recommending approval
mr jones telling you why it's
appropriate
and in fact miss bokar told you in
january that the conditions she put upon
this
are reflective of what she believes the
arb would have done if they could have
reached any consensus
uh and move this forward with conditions
mr suti has likewise suggested to you
that you impose those conditions
and miss cunningham told you herself
that she was at the arb meeting
and there was no consensus and that's
why we didn't get moved forward without
conditions
instead as ms bokar said in january
she's trying to be reflective
of the concerns of the arab with these
conditions as opposed
as imposed i would say
obviously with mr haier's support
immediately to the south
with a home directly across the street
that is taller on these unique facts
i submit to you there is no concern
whatsoever of precedent impact if you
don't approve this the only precedent
created is that the shahs are being
subjected to unequal treatment of law
given the home directly across the
street
and so you know the only evidence before
you
is that the shahs have been victims here
they
are working hard to make the best of a
bad situation thrown upon them
uh and while i respect mr arnold to
impugn their character
when they've lived this nightmare day in
day out when they've halted construction
on a wall and let it sit there half
built because they're trying to make
this right with the great help and
involvement of sullivan builders
is not an accurate reflection of the
record before you
we are frankly sorry that the neighbors
are dealing with this we are sorry that
you are dealing with this
this evening we appreciate your time
your attention we recognize that much
like it was thrust upon the shahs it's
it's
thrust upon you in certain ways
but i think we've done what we can
reasonably be expected to do
to remedy the situation including
our go forward work on landscaping
before the tree and garden commission we
will listen
to the neighbors the shahs want to move
in
and figuratively begin to mend fences
with these neighbors who are
uh upset and continue hopefully to
satisfy those who
think this home is a wonderful asset to
the neighborhood
but this will be their home this will be
their neighborhood
i think you can believe that they will
try as they have
through the sullivans when working in
partnership with the city
and hopefully in the future with the
tree and guardian commission that they
will continue to try to make this right
as could be reasonably expected
so with all of that evidence and and
expert testimony and support of the
shahs
we would ask that you please move this
forward to approval with the conditions
as recommended by
ms beaucard mr stewie all right thank
you very much
mr miller um members of the board
after listening to the testimony and the
additional evidence that's been
presented this evening do you have any
additional questions
uh or comments uh i can go first i've
got
several yes sir sean um
so first of all a couple questions one
how was the hype measured because
there's
there were questions last time about the
difference in height and questions
of whom is this question being directed
this would be a question of the
applicant
how was height determined at 38 feet
because there was there was questions
last time whether it was 38 or 39 and a
half
so i'm asking for was it just a tape
measure dropped was there a true survey
done
and if there was a true survey done was
that submitted as evidence i'm just
curious as to how the 38 foot height was
determined
mr sullivan is is on with us this
evening and can speak to it directly if
my explanation does not suffice but they
worked sullivan builders worked
and mr matt sullivan in particular
worked with a licensed surveyor
to shoot the elevations from a base
elevation of the garage
floor which as i understand ms pogar
bokar's testimony she thought was
legitimate and a credible way of
measuring the height that's where the 38
feet
and the 18-inch discrepancy came from
and
frankly i heard a mish i heard
suggestions made uh by someone walking
by that they thought that
base elevations were changed there's no
evidence of that there's no credible
evidence that the shah is in any way
tried to rig the system here versus
trying to get an accurate measurement
of their house their neighbors across
the street right but
just to be clear for the record i did
not work with
anyone on the elevation measurements but
kathy may be able to add something to
that
right they had to use the
garage floor because there was actually
grade
removed from around the front during the
excavation and construction
so when there this height was being
questioned
we we may not have even been looking at
the finished grade
so they had to use something which the
driveway
was one of the items that was not moved
and
the garage was at the proper height so
they went from that point
okay so the question i have though still
is we're basically going off of hearsay
because we don't have a report we don't
have any kind of documentation that says
a survey or reddit there's no stamp on
it
it's basically somebody telling us we
measured it with the surveyor and it's
38 feet is that correct
we have the sworn testimony of mr
sullivan from january who's also here
with us
to attest to how it was done mr turner
okay is he a surveyor mr sullivan's hand
is raised and can speak again
and i remember if i remember correctly
mr sullivan wasn't sure how to measure
the grade
either in that january testimony so his
sworn testimony can't necessarily be
used as evidence if you had did you use
a professional surveyor
mr sullivan i think these are being
these are questions that are being
directed to you
if you uh uh would raise your right hand
i know you were sworn for the last uh
session but i'd like to just
ensure that you're under oath so would
you swear that
the testimony and answers that you give
this evening will be
the truth and nothing but the truth
yes thank you all right can you address
the questions of mr turner and mitchell
ms mitchell
oh sure so i think uh miss mitchell's
uh accurate or correct
but maybe uh not understanding my point
the point that i was making in the
previous testimony is that
there is uh not a universal
understanding of what grade means
so we we chose to
say that the garage floor was grade
and that is how we measured the height
with a laser using buford
survey who is a licensed surveyor and
has sent us a license a
basically a the calibrations from his
laser the
report from the laser reading and that's
how we
that using that same methodology is how
we shot the elevations
from the street of the adjoining
properties
okay um well so but there's still
nothing submitted to us
so right so there's still no
documentation
when you say nothing's submitted you got
to be careful testimony
is evidence the testimony has been
submitted
okay the testimony is submitted but
there's no
there's no documentation stamped by an
engineer or surveyor indicating the
height
you you judge the weight of the
testimony uh mr trump
uh mr miller do you have a response to
that i do uh
it's obviously in the record what the
professional surveyor did miss
cunningham would advise you that while
you are awaiting evidence the rules of
evidence don't apply in a quasi-judicial
hearing and have never been
uh in my experience in it by any
municipality and instead you know we
didn't object to all the hearsay
suggestions ruminations that were
offered into the record either
but certainly that would have bogged
this down immensely i think the level
evidence is
that the elevations were shot by a
license surveyor and the methodology
used were credible
okay and then i've got i apologize but
i've got a couple more too
so mrs cunningham can probably answer
this um
in relation to the property across the
street we're not arguing
there's not a discussion as to whether
this house meets the zoning height
requirement which is basically the
under the 40 feet the house across the
street has a
has a hipped roof it sits farther off
the street
and so we're looking at it from an
architectural relevance
is what we're making a decision on
correct so
it ca because the just because the
building across the street is taller
does not mean that it doesn't meet
appropriateness is it
i mean am i misunderstanding that it's
up to you
to determine that right you're not
you're not
it there was a certificate of
appropriateness
that was approved and the certificate of
appropriateness
i mean we we have it and we have the
original building plans that were
approved
whether or not that took into account
the relative
scale to the neighboring properties is
there's not a specific finding that says
that
there is an approval and it has
dimensions as it relates to
that house at that location that's what
was approved that were that they're
requesting an amendment from
so how you view that in relationship to
that i think there was testimony the
last hearing
i don't know i i take that back i'm
sorry that was before the arb
so so the question really is as it
relates to the architecture of this
property
b um bzap if if i look at the plans it
says
it shows a height from the the
certificate of appropriateness the
original plans approved are showing a
building height
from linear from the driveway to the
to the ridgeline that's how they
measured it in the certificate of
appropriate
that's not a zoning measurement that's
the way they measured in the certificate
of appropriateness
if you measure it the way that the
applicant did that
is basically it sounds like it's the
same measurement if the garage is the
same as the driveway
there that's how they were measuring it
that measurement doesn't show a
relativity
to what it how it was to any of the
neighbors that i could see
on the plans so i think that's part of
your determination when you're looking
at that and
whether architectural significance is
the architectural significance as to
only the plans
or how that would relate to other
properties
it doesn't necessarily have to be
related to only adjoining properties but
the question is
what did it relate to and based on the
findings before
and and how is this materially different
from that
that's really what you're looking at and
i think that's what mr b hall is saying
when you approve it but that's what
you're looking at i did not see
in the original certificate of
appropriateness
the height of either of the adjoining
properties or
a ridgeline compared to them so then the
question is well was that a relative
scale they didn't have an absolute limit
on the height
in that they they indicated that there
was a 40 foot per minute height and that
it was 36 three so i'm
i struggle that's why you're that's why
you're deciding because
they do have a certificate of
appropriateness and they do have an
approval
um and what they're asking to is to
modify that and it's
i think it's your determination as to
whether or not
given what was approved which were the
plans attached to the application
given what was approved is this
architecturally significantly different
okay
and then sorry i got two two more things
i'll try to be quick yeah um
can i get um and i don't know whether
this is a kathy question or who this
would be
but i pulled up the site plans from 2018
and they do
indicate 39 feet 3 3 inches
so with those plans resubmitted
that were not meeting their the art the
architectural
appropriateness and then approved and
the building built
based on that that's where the buildings
plan
that were submitted incorrect correct
because of the fact they did not meet
the requirement
i'm wondering if there was an error
because it looks as though
there was information put on an old plan
and i would defer to the architect
because the original plan was the 36
six inches 36 3. the one the plan
that was submitted it appears to me that
the plan that was submitted to the
application
with the application which was the
uh record of action plan and original
application
were all dated before the application
and that was the plan that was approved
which was the 363. i where did that
other
plan come from i don't i don't know it's
it's in the it's in the
act of everything that was submitted
today i'm asking i'm asking kathy that
word
what's been confusing because we've had
two different systems where this this
information's file
our building permit matched what was
submitted to the board but then we also
had like minor changes that could be
staff approved
that were submitted that reflected
something specific to the ridge change
and it was a ridge change only
well there were other changes in that
that we did not realize and they weren't
requested
so and that was the original builder so
that's when we
thought there there's why
why are these plans different than what
was originally submitted to the board
and we had to pull all these plans
work with the architect and realize
there's some changes being
made and i'm not sure how
those came to be kathy can you clarify
for me are you saying
that you approved a set of plans
without fully realizing that they had
all these changes in them
well this was a minor architectural
review request
and it was on something specific and
that's what was reviewed
and karen if you if you want to chime in
we both
nothing else was requested and we've
even got that in
when when somebody asked for a minor
staff review for
for what we consider a minor change they
are required to cloud it in
like a red cloud that's
pretty much standard and kathy and i
review those just like we do determine
whether they're minor
or major and if their major come back to
the board and
when we we usually get those in separate
sheets as addendums
and when we looked back it looks as
though
some of these changes were put into it
and not indicated
they put in after you made your approval
of the minor change or were they put in
that's what's not clear to me i'm sorry
well we're not really sure because
we also have an email that says
something like can i
have this on file um we
have misplaced our plans on site can we
just get another set stamped
so i don't think we really know when it
was actually put in but
there's no question that we're submitted
with um a cloud
around the changes to the pitch of the
pool house
which was staff approved and separation
of it as an accessory structure that is
well under the allowable square footage
for the accessory structure
so if in fact the builder or whoever
submitted the plans made those changes
it was
um not indicated and not
legal frankly i mean i don't know what
the right
it was not it was not approved right
those are not approved if staff didn't
make an
express approval of a of a modification
of a plan
the and how would we be how would we be
expected to weigh an application
that didn't even follow the the
safeguards in
in in steps in place with the single
argument that well it still meets code
i like i i don't really fully understand
what my expectation is that's a correct
statement though
what they're saying is it does meet code
code's not the issue
right it does we're not saying because
it meets code you have to approve it
that's not
that's not the fact that right you're
saying you're saying code is not
an issue what is an issue is does the
change i mean when this certificate
appropriateness was granted let's
come to one conclusion this house
was bigger than mr heinemann's house way
bigger
it's bigger than the house to the north
it was a big if they were to tear this
house down
down to the ground and build a new house
exactly per
the current certificate of
appropriateness it would be
bigger whiter it also sticks out because
of its color
and it would not be in line
in terms of a scale with
the with mr highlands house which i
think is a very cute house but is a much
smaller house
i mean that's all there is to it so mr
holland
i i i don't think that it's it's you're
not here to say
that it means code or doesn't mean code
we've already ascertained that it does
you're here to say are the changes that
were granted with the first certificate
of
appropriateness are they
architecturally reasonable and
are they architecturally appropriate are
they significant
or in other words are they too
significant
and are the changes inappropriate if
they are
then they shouldn't be able to amend
their certificate of appropriateness if
in fact their changes are not
significant
and they are appropriate then
we they sh they should or they're asking
for us to
amend the certificate of appropriateness
and that's what our standard is as i
have understood it and catherine in uh
uh
mr suiter can tell us if they disagree
with what i'm saying but i'm trying to
give the board some idea of
what i've been reading here and thinking
about in terms of what is that's
very helpful um mr b hall i
[Music]
and i def please
if i if i may mr marsha are you done
asking your questions
it's mr turner mr turner sorry sorry
that's okay um so you know in
in my previous life when i when i did a
lot of zoning i was also always told
that
um a community asking you to make
changes
in my argument being a cost
i can't it's going to cost me too much
to make those changes
is not a justifiable cause for me to get
the zoning approval if it just because
it's caught just because cost is a
factor
so cost was mentioned here time period
was mentioned here
bad contractor was mentioned here to me
those points
when it comes to the specifics of what
we're looking at
those are things that may not
necessarily be weight and the shaw's may
be the nicest people in the world but i
don't know whether that needs to be
weighed either what we need to look at
is
the architectural appropriateness if the
extra height
still meets that requirement and most of
this other stuff i
if i'm understanding correctly i mean
you can take it into account
but it's really not relevant as to
strictly the architectural
appropriateness of the building and that
catherine you can correct me actually mr
turner that is not the law of ohio that
these considerations are absolutely
relevant because
this decision would be judged by whether
it is objectively
arbitrary or unreasonable in light of
all the evidence presented
and to require this remediation back to
uh what was approved given the slight
difference in height as mr b
hall points out it would still be a
large structure
is unreasonable on this record and
that's the law of ohio
what can i ask you if that's the law of
ohio if it was not
built to the standard i i is it
i mean if you don't build something to
the way it was approved
you can then use the argument that it's
going to cost me too much to change it
to leave it where it is that doesn't
make sense
invitable i'm sorry if that's not i
don't
i don't uh agree with with
um necessarily with
applicants counsel that you cannot i
mean
the question is really to me you they
have a permit that they did not comply
with
for sure um and that's i think with what
miss mitchell is getting
and we're trying not to confuse the
board with is there two lanes here
there's the zoning code
variance lane which
is satisfied and there's no dispute
about that
then there's the lane of you have a
permit issued a certificate of
appropriateness which is a permit to
build in accordance with the plan and
you have somebody who didn't do that
so the question is i mean can you hold
them to strict compliance
does that make sense um or
or does it make sense to allow an
amendment
and from my perspective and and i think
what mr was trying to say
is the real question is
um is it is what the
are the changes they're requesting de
minimis
non-material type things that you can't
tell the difference then if that
i think a reasonableness standard is
going to be imposed or are the changes
significant so significant
architecturally significant that it
changes the nature and character of the
structure
that's really to me what it comes down
to and what you should apply when you're
trying to make a decision relating to
the architectural appropriateness of
this building the fact that it
people didn't realize that i mean
talking about
a potential difference in height it
seems like the evidence is
that it's maybe around 18 inches so is
18 inches architecturally significant to
this structure
to the certificate that was approved is
strict for clients
compliance with that reasonable or is it
unreasonable
does it make a difference you know as it
relates to
what was approved or not um
certainly the applicants arguing that
you know it was uh
it was a mistake and and it should be
able to be rectified because it was not
intentional
that can be a factor in terms of is it
reasonable but is
is that a factor in terms of is it
architecturally significant probably not
so i understand the struggle of of the
sort of reasonableness which should be
the standard you impose
and the whether or not you're making a
determination of
whether or not what they're asking for
is architecturally significant
does it change the fundamental nature
and character of that house to have
window panes that are different or not
you've got a design consultant and staff
members and evidence that goes both ways
on that
so um that's really what commits yeah
miss cunningham if if i may and to mr
miller um
the the anticipate the antithesis of
arbitrary capriciousness is
a fair debate and we are two and a half
hours into this right now
um it it if one could be considered and
it's actually been held i'm looking at
gillis versus city of macomb right now
if one could actually be considered
fairly debatable then it's not
considered arbitrary and capricious so
like i'd really like to push
that aside right now just for the sake
of it because i don't think it's doing
anybody any favor over lawyering this
so um if we can move on from that please
could i say something please um about
since we're focusing on the architecture
i think it's important
to realize that the height which i agree
with mrs
ms cunningham that as of now we've
determined it as 18 inches difference
and which is not a lot
any way this if this house was built
exactly to how it was specked out it
would appear big it's
it's a big house in between two smaller
houses
but we are focusing so much on the
height of the ridge line
and i'm not denying the importance of
that that everything else in the
conditions which are a lot of
important things architecturally at
least for my evaluation
are as important for the character of
the house which is why i brought up
these photographs that i took
quite a while ago this was before the
lentils were replaced before the columns
are
and i don't have any recent pictures but
matt sullivan you could talk to them
those those details are as
important to me as the hype and we are
so focused on the height
which you know if you look at
some of the neighbors pictures from
their backyard even if you lowered it 18
inches this is going to be seen
it's a very large house it was approved
as a very large house
as a design consultant for the city i am
just as concerned about the conditions
that most have been agreed to now but
that that take
took away the character from the
original design that are now being
agreed to be put back
i'm glad you i don't mean to cut you off
but i'm really glad you brought that up
because that was actually one of my
questions
and so i'm glad that you spoke to it um
in terms of the architectural changes
how they
um you know sort of fall in line with
the rest of the neighborhood not just
the
ridge ridge line of the house um
and so it's your it's your
recommendation or your opinion
that from an architectural standpoint
the
changes that have now been implemented
and are being requested for approval
match the rest of the character of the
neighborhood
fit the house and and um are
architecturally sound the conditions
that
myself and mr sudhi have put forward
will
absolutely achieve that in my opinion
there is no
there's nothing you can do to negate the
fact that this is a bigger house
right from the beginning from the outset
but it's on a bigger lot
um secondly i don't think we should put
i think we are not putting enough
emphasis on another condition that i
think is of
utmost important and that is a landscape
plan
be re-evaluated by the tree and public
gardens commissions and our landscape
consultant elena andrews
and at the last hearing i did suggest
that
very mature trees be picked as well so
that there's oversight into
the size of the landscape i think that
looking at this property without any
landscape on it
really and emphasizes the problems even
more
but they're gonna if they agree to the
conditions to fix some of the
architectural problems
and submit a landscape plan that is a
significant landscape plan
that adheres more to the sketches that
we saw at the beginning
i think that this house will fit in very
well
i just think you have to accept the fact
that it's just a bigger house
on a bigger piece of property than the
two on either side from the beginning
okay i'm going to be hauling this along
does anybody else have any questions
mr marsh mr marsh please yeah you know
this is really unique um and i think the
fact that
um you know the plans got approved
and and again when i look at the height
the height doesn't concern me and the re
the reason i say that is
the the the zoning codes 40 feet uh
and you know other people have said it i
mean that this was a big house
uh when you drive when and and the
problem is
drawings got approved then the house got
built and then everybody's looking at
the drawings and looking at the house
and they're saying it's too big
but but it's not the 18 inches uh
and so i just think it's very unique
situation and i think
um you know what one and i agree
completely with karen
that once you know there's no mature
landscaping to hide it
the fact that it's white it stands out
and so everybody's
saying you know it doesn't doesn't
comply doesn't comply
it it really isn't that different than
what was submitted
and as soon as the mature landscaping is
in
and you drive down the street no one's
going to know that it's 18 inches taller
than
than when it what than what it was
supposed to be so
if if you know and and you can drive
around bexley and see a lot of big
houses
and we have you know big houses we have
small houses we have everything in
between
i i just don't you know i i just don't
see the
the the height um and you know if our
if our code allows you to build the 40
feet
then i i i don't have a concern about it
and i think
you know i think they've done done
whatever they can with a
reasonableness and if if
if people want them to take the roof off
and lower it 18 inches i guarantee when
you drive down that street
no one's know the difference
those are my thoughts thank you mr marsh
uh do we have any other questions
from members of the board i had two
questions and then i just had comments
and my questions really are just going
to help me clarify
my thought process mr miller um i
realize that you don't need to submit
this as
some sort of evidence or anything like
that but um
would you you feel confident that from
your client you've received
at least proof that they never
authorized any of these change orders
um or signed off on them absolutely and
speaking with ms solomon as well as the
shahs there were no written change
orders from this builder i understand
that for folks who may touch this
industry that sounds unusual
but for the uninitiated who have never
built a custom home as miss
shaw and miss solomon both stated they
didn't know the difference and they
certainly didn't even know of the
building height issue
until raised by the city through the
neighbors it also begs the question of
how many homes are constructed in the
city of bexley
that happen to be out of line with what
was approved in terms of building height
there is no evidence that the city
building department goes out and shoots
them after the fact
but the shahs find themselves caught up
in this not of their own making i am
thoroughly convinced of that and that's
my sworn testimony
um and mr sullivan and mr sullivan by
chance
um with res
or excuse me mr miller mixing up names
here mr miller
um do your clients have receipts of
payments that they made
that is in line with the bids that they
received
or when they received those receipts
for demand for payment was there
anything that would make them stop and
go
hey that's different than what you
promised us there is
evidence of payments obviously made to
this builder
um and then you know obviously they
fired him and i think ms sullivan and
whisper solomon was prepared to testify
as it relates to lawsuits you can't get
blood from a turnip here
um but the shahs
you know you may people in the industry
may think the shahs were
trusting to a fault but they did not
know of these discrepancies and in the
one instance in which they actually
raised it
the difference is in the side entry
porch which is before you tonight
they directly asked is this something we
need approval of and he affirmatively
lied to them and said
i've taken care of it they believed him
um well my only comments that i have um
and you know that i'm gonna shut up is
um
i try to always focus on you know what's
the problem or the issue that we need to
solve
um we've obviously addressed the issue
of co-compliance
and then the absence of whether or not
this home is compliant
and that issue is resolved do the
architectural
changes fit in line with
you know the recommendations from staff
i i know oftentimes people um
want us to focus on feelings and and
subjective
opinions um but i come back to and it's
probably why i kept asking those
questions mr b hall i appreciate you
trying to
weigh in but i'm asking the questions
because i'm trying to fully understand
what's the duty and the scope that we're
supposed to
um to to focus on
um and you know
i think it's important to when you're
looking at
you know plans or or you know this case
before us
are we leaving a family and asking a
family to
you know compromise
but only compromise in the way that some
of the neighbors want
when the direct immediate neighbors have
said you know we're ready to move on
you know yeah we don't love it but we're
ready to
move on we can live with this um and is
the compromise we're asking for so
unreasonable
and so out of scope of what we're even
supposed to be weighing we've spent
nearly three hours
weighing two issues that have
been presented to us in the first hour
as resolved
so i you know that's where i stand on it
all right so i don't have anything you
don't need to tell us how you stand
until you vote how's that
yep let me ask uh do we have um
uh can i entertain a motion to call the
question
so moved thank you mr schick um
can i have the the findings of
fact and conclusions of law as regards
this
amendment a request for amendment um
capitalism sure the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bzap-20-63
for property located at 424 south
columbia
the board finds that an amended
certificate of an appropriateness
should be granted with the following
conditions
that the architectural features
modifications are allowed
including window grids as indicated in
the updated drawings
height modified from 36
feet six inches to as constructed
side entry door and architectural be
modified and
as indicated on the updated drawings
skylights be approved at the location
indicated on the updated drawings
but the columns be detailed to
accurately reflect
the post and beam construction two
the landscape plan fencing site lighting
and landscape wall be reviewed and
approved
by the bexley tree and public garden
commission
three that the site modifications design
and materials will be
in substantial conformance with the
renderings and plans submitted
at the march 24th 2021 board of zoning
and planning meeting
unless otherwise modified in
collaboration with arb and staff
all right very good dessert any member
of the
panel have anything to add or
modify from that reading of findings of
fact conclusions of law
mr b hall um yes ma'am i might suggest
i know that it says as indicated on
updated drawings in a couple of those
conditions
if we could indicate if we have a date
on those drawings
or some identifiers so that we know what
they are that would be
appreciated okay i think that's a good
idea
um then my only other comment is if the
board
is um making a
an approval um if you have a finding
as it relates to this architectural
significance of what's being done or
approved i would appreciate if that's
included in there if you don't have such
a finding
then don't include it
so would board members need to provide
that
for me to add any specific
the question is can we add that as one
of the findings
that the amended amendments requested
are architecturally
are not architecturally significant or
inappropriate
or you i mean whatever your you're
finding as a board is you can find that
they are appropriate
you can find that they're not whatever
but i think that that needs to be part
of your findings
so that the conditions will make it
architecturally
compatible with the existing structure
the conditions will make it
architecturally compatible with what
i didn't follow that with the
neighborhood oh
oh well or maybe with the approved plans
isn't what catherine's suggesting that a
finding that
the the amendment to the certificate of
appropriate is not
material as compared with the original
that's really what you're doing you're
not making a new finding as it relates
to architecture
and i agree yes you're making it more
architecturally compatible to the
original
to the to the original design well
okay let's get this straight i think mr
vine has it
pretty much right on he does but what
we're comparing it to
is the current certificate drawing
submitted with the current
certificate of appropriateness right so
when you say it's compatible with
the current design i mean the current
design
the the amendments are compatible
either yes or no has got to be the vote
here
with the original
architecture set forth
in the current certificate of
appropriateness
rick i don't know if i made that clearer
or less clear
i don't think that's quite there i think
it's the amendments to the extent that
they deviate from the original
are not material i think that's the
issue yeah
because many of the amendments are
to make it conforming so
right so because amendments as they
deviate
are not materially
material from the material original yeah
material and significant
and nor inappropriate i mean they could
come in and say they want to
paint it purple or something and we
might not approve that
are not material insignificant or
inappropriate
right all right now
let me also make it clear that should
this uh request be denied
we're we're in view of what we decided
at the last
board meeting we will have another
motion
to deny and
then we will state our reasons for
denying it and that will come to a vote
as well
so that the any uh
panel of of uh appellate
review has some basis to know what the
point of and the basis of our denial was
so this vote right now is in the
affirmative
they've made an application to amend we
are now voting
yes we agree you should you should be
able to amend as
as requested and no we do not think you
should not be
we we do not think you should be able to
amend as
as suggested so that's what yes and no
means here
does that sound good miss cunningham
it does um can i get a can we get a
drawings identifier in there
what identification do you have
available what drawings do we have
and we kept looking we've got exhibit a
was there a different one than that
that was proposed i look to staff on
that
jason kathy or i am checking
are they going to be required to go back
to landscape
yes that's yeah that's what's going on
that is the conditions
it's like e1 b or c i believe
kathy do you know sorry that was very
dorky i apologize
would it be
yeah right for the 28th of the
powerpoint yeah that should be
so that's the exhibit we'll call that
exhibit
well that's what it's called on the
agenda yes that's
correct is that correct
mister this has got to be because it's
been taking a bit
to download every time so
okay
[Music]
mr miller is that correct i i don't know
what was demarcated as exhibit a
i thought you were spending these four
years it was your
powerpoint your powerpoint the last
meeting i would think that's the most
appropriate drawings to
designate since it showed the changes
and and other changes that were reversed
so to me the january 28th
powerpoint presentation makes clear what
uh we would be obligated today and
and that's the one we cited in very
first one karen
that very first one is exhibit a is that
it the very first one yeah
that's it okay i hope it is
sometimes you get lucky yes
okay great
does that have the just making sure does
that have the plan that shows it at 39
feet though
just making sure i mean is that is that
one right there does that
if i may uh mr turner it shows the 36
and six inches and 38 feet okay that's
fine
i mean i just know there's two out there
and it is noted in the conditions that
it is the 36
but it's as as constructed okay i just
want to make sure
i don't want to come back later so right
okay
thank you all right thank you for that
clarification
uh miss cunningham so uh mr miller do
you
or your clients agree to
the conditions set forth in the reading
of the findings of fact and conclusions
of law should it pass
we do okay
with that in mind i think we can
uh call the role for the vote please
did you have a motion in a second oh i
have to start yeah i'll make a motion
thank you mr marsh motion to approve the
fighting effect conclusions law by mr
marsh
is there a second
second second mr line thank you sir
all right with that in mind uh kathy
please call the roll
uh mr marsh yes
mr levine
uh yes miss mitchell
yes mr schick
yes mr turner
i'm going to vote no because without the
certification of the height
i i think there's still personally
discrepancy and
the exact height of what the building is
so i'm voting now
and chairman b hall i vote yes also so
the
amendment to distribute appropriateness
is granted and
if there are no further comments this
session
of the board of zoning and planning is
adjourned thank you thank you for your
patience everybody
and thank you for your time and
commitment here to getting this
case done thank you
thank you mister thanks to everyone
thank you mr miller
kathy am i expected tomorrow thank you
well i didn't
i'll check for you and let you know okay
all right thank you good night everyone
everybody thank you thanks thank you
you