Board of Zoning Appeals

The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:00 pm in the Lancaster City Schools Education Service Center, 111 S Broad Street, Lancaster, Ohio. Members present were Rebecca Anderson, Lindy Jackson, Jim Edwards and Jim Bahnsen. Also present was Amy Calvert- Glorioso, Secretary, Stephanie Hall, City Prosecutors Office and Peter Vail, Zoning Official. Mr. Bahnsen called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. Mr. Bahnsen advised that anyone wishing to speak would be sworn in before speaking. All those wishing to address the Board were sworn in by Mr. Bahnsen. Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 7, 2017 Board Meeting. Mr. Jackson seconded. BZA CASE #555 Liviu Poleuca has applied for an appeal for the property located at 118 N. Columbus Street. The property is located within the Lancaster Historic District. Mr. Poleuca painted an artistic piece on the southside of the building without applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Lancaster Historic Commission and did not follow the guidelines for the use of color as found in the Historic Lancaster Design Guideline. They are requesting the Board appeal the Historic Commissions decision to remove the artistic piece. Ms. Amanda Everett, Destination Downtown, 201 S. High Street, Lancaster was present to represent Mr. Poleuca, the property owner and Destination Downtown. Ms. Everett stated that this business and artist did fail to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. This was not a blatant disregard for the rules, but simply ignorance on their part. Ms. Everett provided examples of other businesses in the Historic District who have applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness after the fact and were approved by the Commission. The Artist and the property owner have apologized for their error. To deny their request based solely on their failure to obtain the Certificate after approving other similar requests, is simply not fair. They are making an example of this property. Ms. Everett provided the Board with petitions signed by area businesses showing their support and approval of the artwork. She also provided a petition signed by many art students showing their support. Ms. Everett stated that the Historic Commission is attempting to build a better process. The rules are not up to date and the community is not well-informed. Mr. Jackson stated, that the Board is not eager to override the Historical Society again, but the Historic Society needs to be proactive. Discussion was had suggesting the Historic Commission – ▪ Consider the neighbor’s and the business communities’ opinion, ▪ Ensure the property owners are aware of the rules and regulations, ▪ Impose fines for failure to comply with the rules and regulations ▪ Definitions and designated rules for Historic Commercial and Historic Residential Mr. Edwards stated that the Code has a broad definition of alteration concerning the change of exterior. Mr. Bahnsen stated that he had researched other historical cities and their rules and regulations. Philadelphia does not make a judgement call on mural content. The purpose of the Historical Commission is to protect and revitalize the Historic District. Ms. Anderson stated for the record, the Board of Zoning Appeals is not determining or issuing an opinion as to if this mural is art or not. Ms. Anderson read directly from the Historic Lancaster Design Guidelines, Paragraph Number 2: “Before selecting a color scheme, investigate what colors were used on the building historically, Information can be gathered from asking long-time residents, through viewing old phonographs or analyzing the layers of pain in paint chips from various parts of the building.” Ms. Anderson stated that the painting on the building was denied by the Historic Lancaster Commission because it did not meet “the design guidelines for color”. Ms. Anderson provided a photo of the building from 2012 showing that the black portion was black, the front of the building was painted red and the front of the building had white molding and white trimmed windows. These are the color used in the mural. Ms. Anderson also stated that the building owner should have applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness prior to commissioning any painting, however, it is apparent this is not the first case of this happening. Ms. Anderson made a motion to reverse the Historic Lancaster Commission’s ruling that Ms. Akin and Mr. Poleuca be ordered to return that portion of wall to the previous solid black color on the building located at 118 N. Columbus Street and to forgive their error of not obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to beginning any painting. Mr. Jackson seconded. Unanimous vote to appeal the Historic Lancaster Commissions ruling was granted. Mr. Edwards made a motion to nominate Mr. Oatney as Chairperson. Mr. Jackson seconded. Nominations were closed. Unanimous vote to appoint Mr. Oatney as Chairperson. Mr. Edwards made a motion to nominate Ms. Bahnsen as Second Chairperson. Ms., Anderson seconded. Nominations were closed. Unanimous vote to appoint Mr. Bahnsen as Second Chairperson Mr. Jackson made a motion to nominate Ms. Calvert-Glorioso as Secretary. Ms. Anderson seconded. Nominations were closed. Unanimous vote to appoint Ms. Calvert-Glorioso as Secretary. Mr. Jackson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Edward seconded. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Amy Calvert-Glorioso, Secretary