Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals

Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals

Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Mtg.

September 2, 2009 Page - 1

Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals

September 2, 2009

City of Huber Heights

I.Chair John Howlett, called the Meeting of the City of Huber Heights Board of Zoning Appeals to order at 6:53 p.m.

II.Roll call was taken. Present were:Mr. Wilson, Mr. Lyons, and Mr. Howlett.

Members Absent: Mr. Moorman. His absence was excused.

Staff present for this meeting: Roger Custer, Planning and Development Director, and Margaret A. Muhl, Recording Secretary.

Other Attendees: Chris Lohr, Code Enforcement Administrator.

III.Approval of the Agenda

Motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Lyons to approve the agenda for the September 2, 2009 meeting of the BZA Board.Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Lyons, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Howlett. NAYS: None.

IV.Swearing of Witnesses

Mr. Howlett explained the proceedings for tonight's meeting and swore in all applicants and persons wishing to speak tonight. All present responded in the affirmative.

V.Old Business

None.

VI.New Business

1. BZA Case No. 09-11

The applicant, BRENDA & JERRY SOUDERS, is requesting a variance of Chapter 1181.01 – Location, in order to have a shed remain at its current location on property located at 5059 Pepper Drive, Huber Heights, Ohio45424.

Roger Custer proceeded to read the pertinent information regarding this case into the record.

In March of 2009, a transfer of responsibility was completed in relation to a pre-sale that revealed the existence of the non-permitted shed.

The shed in question is within the 5’ required for distance between a primary structure and an accessory structure. The shed is 2.5’ from the primary structure, and was originally constructed by the previous owner on a concrete slab, and a Transfer of Responsibility was signed by the current owner to resolve the situation. The shed is in good repair, and there appears to be no detrimental impact on surrounding property owners.

Staff recommends approval of the request for the existing shed to remain at its current location with the condition that should the current shed be destroyed or fall into disrepair, any future shed will be required to be built in full compliance with Chapter 1191 of the Codified Ordinances.

Public Hearing

Brenda Souders stated it would be cumbersome to move the shed from its existing location. Therefore, they are requesting to have the shed remain at its current site.

Mr. Lyons asked if the shed was attached to any of the existing structures. Mrs. Souders stated it was not. Mr. Lyons asked if the slab had footers. Mrs. Souders was not sure, but stated that it was thick concrete.

There being no other individuals who wished to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed and discussion was brought back to the Board.

Board Discussion

Mr. Howlett stated the shed appeared well maintained. The Board agreed and felt there was no problem with having the shed remain at its current location.

Action

Motion made by Mr. Howlett to grant the variance of Chapter 1191.01 to allow the existing shed to remain at its current location which was 2.5’ from the primary structure, but if the building becomes damaged or in disrepair, the building would have to be constructed in accordance with the present code requirements.

Variance Standards

A.Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Answer: No.

B.Whether the variance is substantial. Answer: No.

C. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially

altered or whether adjoined properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a

result of the variance. Answer: No.

D.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water, sanitary sewer or garbage removal. Answer: No.

E.Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction. Answer: Yes.

F.Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Answer: No.

G.Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Answer: Yes.

Seconded by Mr. Lyons. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Wilson, Mr. Lyons, and Mr. Howlett. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried 3-0.

  1. BZA Case 09-12

The applicant, TOM CLINE on behalf of Doris Leonard, is requesting a variance of Chapter 1181.04(f) – Projections, to erect a front patio cover on an existing concrete slab at property located at 7761 Bassett Drive, Huber Heights, Ohio45424.

Roger Custer proceeded to read the pertinent information regarding this case into the record.

Mr. Custer stated the applicant was seeking to add a front porch patio cover above the existing concrete slab.

The subject plans were received in the Planning and Development Department on July 23, 2009. The applicant is seeking to add a front porch patio cover to the existing house. A concrete slab exists which measures approximately 7’ from the existing structure. The proposed cover will be approximately 18’ from the right-of-way. There appear to be no sight distance issues.

Staff recommends granting a 1.5’ variance for the construction of the front porch patio cover.

Public Hearing

Tom Cline, 5784 Poe Avenue (Buschur’s Home Improvement), stated the cover would not have a negative impact on the surrounding property owners.

Mr. Wilson asked if the cover would be attached to the existing roof. Mr. Cline explained it would be attached to the facia.

Mr. Custer advised that a letter of support was received by the City, and he proceeded to read it into the record as follows:

“To whom it may concern: (August 19, 2009)

“I find no problem with the improvement of the property at 7761 Bassett, H. Hgts., Ohio – 45424. I say congratulations to the homeowners.”

“Marlene Schaaf

“7785 Redbank Lane

“Huber Heights, Ohio45424”

There being no other individuals wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed and discussion was brought back to the Board.

Board Discussion

Mr. Howlett stated there have been several of these types of requests over the last few years. He did not feel this request would cause any problems to surrounding properties. The Board did not have any issues with the request.

Action

Motion made by Mr. Lyons to approve the request by Mr. Cline on behalf of Doris Leonard, for a variance of Chapter 1181.04(f), to erect a front patio cover on an existing concrete slab.

Variance Standards

A.Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Answer: No.

B.Whether the variance is substantial. Answer: No.

C. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially

altered or whether adjoined properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a

result of the variance. Answer: No.

D.Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water, sanitary sewer or garbage removal. Answer: No.

E.Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction. Answer: No.

F.Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Answer: No.

G.Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Answer: Yes.

Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Lyons, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Howlett. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried 3-0.

VII.Additional Business

None.

VIII.Approval of the Minutes

Motion made by Mr. Lyons and seconded by Mr. Wilson to approve the minutes of theJuly 22, 2009meeting. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Wilson, Mr. Lyons, and Mr. Howlett. NAYS: None. Board unanimously approved.

IX.Adjournment

Motion made byMr. Howlettto adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Lyons. Board unanimously approved.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m.

______

John Howlett, ChairmanDate

______

Margaret A. Muhl, Recording Secretary Date

1