Board of Zoning Appeals

The Board of Zoning Appeals (“Board”) met on Monday, September 12, 2022, at 2:00 pm in the 1897 Room, 104 E. Main St, Lancaster, Ohio. Members present were Rebecca Anderson, Jim Edwards, Belinda Nebbergall and Tim Oatney. Staff present were Stephanie Hall, Law Director, Mitch Harden, City Prosecutor’s Office, Pete Vail, Zoning Official, David Scheffler, Mayor, Phyllicia Faieta, City Planner, Mitch Noland, City Engineer, and Kendra Brown, Administrative Assistant. Chairman Mr. Oatney called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. Mr. Oatney also advised that anyone addressing the Board would be sworn in before speaking. All those wishing to speak were sworn in. Mr. Oatney read the Notice of Appellate Rights to all attendees. BZA Case No. 646 Mr. Paul Reinbold, 1799 Declaration Dr., has applied for a special exception (application BZ- 00646) to operate an air bnb at the same location also known as parcel number 0534223600. The property is zoned RS-3: Residential Single-Family High Density. Planning & Zoning Code Section 1129.02(d)(7) requires a special exception be granted for bed & breakfast which is similar to an air bnb. The Board may choose to grant an area variance to allow the parking to take place in the driveway or garage since there isn't any way to access the rear yard. Mr. Reinbold is requesting the Board grant the special exception for the air bnb. After a brief description from Mr. Reinbold detailing his air bnb. The board asked about owner occupancy, parking, entrances. Mr. Reinbold realized he need to have a special exception to use his home for an air bnb. He has been using it as this for four years. There was a discussion about parking for the guests and homeowner making it mandatory for the guest to park in the garage if it the exception is granted. There was no one in the audience for or against granting the requested action, the city did receive two letters from neighbors. The first letter is from Stacey Wolfinger Summarizing: Stacey is opposed to the Air bnb in the neighborhood. She has purchased a single-family home in a quiet, friendly, and safe neighborhood. She is afraid an Air bnb would change that and bring in more short-term rental owners, not families. The second letter is from Michael Kostiuk. Summarizing: After considering both sides Michael does not support the Air bnb in the neighborhood. He had a conversation with Mr Henry Diyanni, the developer of Brentwood Estates, and was provided with deed restrictions stating that transient uses are forbidden. He is also concerned this would attract buyers looking for short-term rentals and not family homes. The communication from the City is as long as Mr. Reinbold can provide parking we are not opposed to the Air bnb. There was a discussion about the deed restrictions and the HOA for Brentwood Estates. Along with what the board would be able to allow. Mr. Edwards made a motion for the board to call an executive session to meet with counsel privately: The members voted unanimously to have an executive session. Mr. Oatney made a motion to go back in secession, Mr. Edward seconded it. The members voted unanimously to resume secession. Ms. Nebbergall made a motion to approve the use variance and the special exception as proposed; Ms. Anderson seconded the motion. The members voted unanimously by roll call has denied the special exception and the use variance and signed an entry stating the same. BZA Case No. 648 Mr. Mike Qualls, of Gene's Signs Co., Inc., Bremen, Ohio, has applied for area variances (BZ-00648) for the property located at 2656 N. Columbus St. also known as parcel number 0532003661. This property is zoned IL: Industrial Light. The property owner, Riser Properties, LLC, wishes to have installed a joint Identification sign at the southeast edge of the property. Building Code Section 1317.09 Sign Matrix requires this type of sign to be limited to a front setback of twenty feet and a sign area of twenty square feet. The site plan shows the sign being placed three feet back from the front property line and the plan shows a sign area of sixty square feet. Tenant panels are designed at 12 inches high by 46 inches long. This sign will only be used for the fifteen new tent spaces developed in the two new buildings. With the placement of the sign in close proximity of the front property line, the City Engineer determined there will not be any line-of- sight issues when traffic leaving the property must turn right out only. Mr. Qualls is requesting the Board approve the area variances for the reduced front setback and the increased area of the sign. After a brief description from Mr. Qualls detailing the new sign to be built for new commercial building Gateway at 2656 N Columbus St. The parking lot had determined where the sign would be placed. There was a conversation on where the sign would line up with the current on that is at the next address. It will be a few feet off from that sign but not closer to the road. There were no communications nor objections from the City. There was no one in the audience for or against granting the requested action. Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the set back and square footage and the special exception as proposed; Ms. Anderson seconded the motion. The members voted unanimously by roll call to grant the special exception and the use variance and signed an entry stating the same. BZA Case No. 649 Mr. Jon Farling, of 2269 Dauer Ct., Powell, Ohio, has applied by appeal (BZ-00649) for a variance to the Flood Damage Prevention ordinance, Chapter 1331 of the Building Code, for the property located at 668 Lawrence St. also known as parcel number 0535023193. Mr. Farling wishes to construct two additional buildings containing self-storage units for rent. The site plan is showing the proposed location of the new buildings near the existing buildings constructed after May of 1980. The property is at an elevation of about 812 (above sea level). The base flood elevation is a little over 816. This would require the area to be filled to a height of five feet above the current grade to bring the new buildings above the Base Flood Elevation. A letter from McCarty Associates, LLC. Mr. Farling has indicated this type of work will create a hardship as explained in the letter. The architect's proposal is to add flood venting to the exterior and interior walls of the buildings to allow for the free flow of flood water in case of a flood event. A letter in response from Ms. Cook, from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, a state agency in charge of managing flood plain areas in Ohio, has stated these buildings are not considered as residential buildings requiring dry flood-proofing as mentioned in code section 1331.15(c). Other requirements would include filling two feet above the BFE and constructing solid walls to create a crawlspace. Mr. Farling is requesting the Board to grant a variance to allow the wet flood-proofing method recommended by the architectural firm. Mr. Farling did not appear at the scheduled hearing, and no one appeared on his behalf. There were no communications from the City. There was no one in the audience for or against granting the requested action. There were objections from the City. Geoff Davis, Floodway manager, states the property is in the floodway and FEMA would not approve of a new building. Mitch Noland, City Engineer states a new building needs to be built to the current code and current standards. There was a discussion on the design of the vents internally for flood flow if there is an event. Discussed about a letter from McCarthy and Associates saying they spoke with Daniel Cook, Dept of Natural Resources in Columbus, stating that the building is non-residential and would need to comply with 1331.15(c) only allows for dry flood proofing and would also include that it need to be elevated two feet above the flood level Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the use variance and the special exception as proposed; Ms. Anderson seconded the motion. The members voted unanimously by roll call to deny the special exception and the use variance and signed an entry stating the same. Mr Oatney made a motion to adjourn; Ms. Nebbergall seconded. The members voted unanimously to adjourn by voice vote.