Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF TALLMADGE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of Meeting Held May 8, 2012 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Date Time Place Members Present: Kevin Heilmeier, Richard Schunk, Melanie Bushey, Richean Kuzior and David Cooper Members Absent: Chaired by: Kevin Heilmeier Secretary: Velma Williams  Regular meeting  Special Meeting PRESENT: John Scavelli, Assistant Law Director Roger Lyons, Code Enforcement Official ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED Item #1 Case No. 909 Charles W. Aeppli – Applicant/Owner 991 Southeast Avenue Variance requested from Subsection 1157.03 (c); Accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 square feet. Request variance to 1,932 square feet. For review and approval. Item #2 Case No. 910 Nick Dadich – Applicant/Owner 16 Oliver Road Variance requested from Subsection 1155.09 (a); Minimum side yard Setback required of 10 feet. Request variance to 3 feet; Variance requested from Subsection 1155.03 (c); Accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 square feet; Request variance to 940 feet. The May 8, 2012 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Kevin Heilmeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll called. All members present. Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 2. Mr. Heilmeier: The next item of business is the approval of the minutes of the April 10, 2012 meeting. Mrs. Bushey: So moved. Mr. Cooper: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members voted in favor (5-0). Mr. Heilmeier: Do we have any additions to the agenda tonight from the city? Mr. Lyons: No sir. Mr. Heilmeier: Any correspondence or communications? Mr. Lyons: For the second item. Mr. Heilmeier: Okay. It now being 7:01, Case No. 909. Item #1 Case No. 909 Charles W. Aeppli – Applicant/Owner 991 Southeast Avenue Variance requested from Subsection 1157.03 (c); Accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 square feet. Request variance to 1,932 square feet. For review and approval. Mr. Heilmeier: Is the applicant here? Please come up to the podium. I’ll now declare the Public Hearing open (7:02 p.m.) Mr. Charles W. Aeppli was sworn in. Mr. Heilmeier: State your name and address, please. Mr. Aeppli: Charles Aeppli, 991 Southeast Avenue, Tallmadge, Ohio. Mr. Heilmeier: You’re requesting, go through your request for variance please. Mr. Aeppli: I’m requesting a variance for additional square footage of exterior buildings. I’m wanting to build an additional detached garage. It’s for my personal use. It’s just for my own private use. I would just like to have more garage space that’s on the property and safe and covered and clean and everything. Mr. Heilmeier: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application? Board? Mr. Cooper: What’s the existing building in the back? Is that your garage? Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 3. Mr. Aeppli: It’s a building that was there when I moved there. Its, I don’t know if you call it a pole barn. It has a cement floor but it’s just wood to the bottom. It’s for maybe the tractor and the lawnmowers and stuff. I use it. I keep cars out there now but this new one will have a foundation, siding. The old one is just that wood exterior, that board they used. This one will be up front more and in sight but it will have aluminum siding, a good roof, good exterior lighting, electricity. The building out back doesn’t have electricity. Mr. Cooper: Thank you. Mrs. Bushey: Does your existing garage that you have attached to your house, does that have any vehicles in it? Mr. Aeppli: The house has a two car garage that’s attached and its, yes I use that as a garage. Mr. Heilmeier: And you have approximately one acre? Mr. Aeppli: Yes. Mr. Schunk: Why have you chosen to locate this proposed building approximately the same distance from the public right of way as your house? In fact it’s a little bit closer to the public right of way than your house. Isn’t that just, it looks like you’re adding another house to the property. Is there some reason that this garage couldn’t be located farther to the northeast, say along where the existing gravel driveway is? Mr. Aeppli: I was, I think trying to preserve the back yard and make it easy to get into this new garage off the driveway. The driveway gets wide at the top. You turn in that way so to me it just seemed like a good place to have it to be able to pull into it from the driveway that’s already there and keep my turn around where it is. The gravel going to the back, I actually, like I say there are cars in the back so I do have to drive in between there to get to the back garage. To me like I say it was to keep the back yard open and it’s still back off the street. The house itself sits back farther than either house next to it so the new garage is about even with the houses that are my next door neighbors. Mr. Schunk: All right, let me ask you the three questions that we have in our Code, what unnecessary hardships do you experience by not having this garage? Mr. Aeppli: Well, unnecessary, I don’t know about that word. This year I’m Mr. Schunk: That’s the language Mr. Aeppli: Okay, I understand. I’m a car collector, I guess. I am in the hobby and I have some extra cars and this year I’m paying to store cars, this past winter. I’m having to store things not at my house and pay a monthly rate to store a couple cars. Not only is it the expense, it’s the worry because it’s just not the same of having them on your Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 4. property where you can see them and check on them. I could just use more room like I say for the tractor and for bicycles and the daily driven cars and things. Mr. Schunk: Is there some extraordinary circumstances applying to your property that is different from everybody else’s in that area? Mr. Aeppli: Not that I know of. What I like about the property is that its large, it is actually a double lot but it’s all mine so I have the space in that sense where some of the ones around me don’t have that additional space. I don’t know how to answer that but as I say I do have additional cars that I collect and keep up. I’d like to perhaps add on to those someday and have everything at home where I can have it and have my choice of things to drive and that type of thing. Mr. Schunk: I see. Mrs. Kuzior: Mr. Aeppli, the reason that this goes over the Code, the amount that’s allowed by the Code is because of that back building in addition to this building because this new building isn’t that big. It isn’t 900 square feet, correct? Mr. Aeppli: This new one? Actually the new one is large. I’m looking at 4-car. Mrs. Kuzior: I was looking at the stakes that were there. It didn’t look that big. Mr. Aeppli: No, it’s correct and it’s on the, I think it’s just over 1,000. Mrs. Kuzior: But what puts us way over the top is that other building. Mr. Aeppli: Correct. Mrs. Kuzior: In addition to this building. It sounds like you’re not real fond of that other building. Is there any chance that you could tear that down and then we’d be more close to what’s allowed? Mr. Aeppli: I don’t know. I never thought about that. It’s in nice condition. I do use it. I had never thought of doing that that way but I don’t, that’s not an idea I, again it was there when I moved there but its lovely, there’s not a thing wrong with that building other that its plainer than the new one I’m going to build and there’s no electricity back to it yet and its back, if I want anything out there, I have to walk clear to the back yard whereas, that’s another reason to build this one up close. Its handier is another reason to choose this location rather something back in the yard. Mrs. Kuzior: This is twice what we normally would allow in the city and most of the time, I’ll tell you, I’ve been on the board for a while, most of the time when we see something like this where there’s a problem with the square footage allowable its because you have a little storage barn in the back and then you cannot attach a garage to your house. There’s no possibly way. Then we have to look at the outbuilding. Well there is a hardship there. They can’t add on to this house and make this garage Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 5. attached so it’s become an outbuilding. Whereas, you already have an attached garage and then you’re going to add another four-car detached garage and then you’ve got a thousand square foot building. It’s huge. Mr. Aeppli: I understand. Mrs. Kuzior: Its way different than what’s allowed. Mr. Aeppli: I thought about the idea of adding on to the existing house or garage because I understand from the zoning that that’s a different, more agreeable solution in some cases but the way my house sits and then the garage sits, kind of 90 degrees from it, if I wanted to go further across with the garage, it would just to me it would look, not right at all. It would look like a whole row of garages. I really couldn’t go Mrs. Kuzior: You can’t go deep? You can’t bring it deeper? Mr. Aeppli: Well there’s space within the yard but then I don’t know how you would get the cars in and out; the ones that are parked in it. I thought about it. I did look into that. Mrs. Kuzior: I have seen them where they’ve added, I’m not trying to add to your cost. I’m just seeing how this is going and it’s probably not going to go well because it’s so big and I’m just trying to come up with a solution is all. If you would add onto the garage and make it deeper and wider and then sometimes, people put a back garage door as well as a front garage door and then you could get back to your back property. You wouldn’t have to worry about having it on the side. Put the cars in the back that you don’t use. I don’t know. I’m just trying to come up with a solution. Mr. Aeppli: I understand it and again I have thought of that idea. I think that what you are, part of the result of that is you’re, it’s going into my back yard whereas in doing it this way, as I walk out the back door I have a little area there to sit and things and its private, it’s quiet. I’m on kind of a busy street but when you sit back there, you don’t even know you’re on that street. It’s very nice and I have the rest of the back yard and then the building out back is toward the back of the property. Again it was there when I moved there. Its part of the reason I wanted to move there. Mrs. Kuzior: I didn’t come up with this solution when I was there. I was just looking at the plan and thought about it. I didn’t see where you have your back Mr. Aeppli: Again, not to interrupt I thought of adding on to that existing garage that way but that’s my area that I, that’s the back of the house and the back yard that I enjoy the most I think I would say. I didn’t want to come forward off the garage. I don’t think that would look right. Again the only other thought was to go sideways from it. I wouldn’t get four cars but I could put maybe two in. It wasn’t a look I was interested in or anything. Mrs. Kuzior: So this new garage you’re proposing would hold four cars? Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 6. Mr. Aeppli: Yes. Mrs. Bushey: If you would build it right now, would it be filled, you couldn’t take anything from that back building that you have right now and stick it in this garage? Mr. Aeppli: Well the idea, I mean I have, there’s three cars actually right now that are stored off, that I’m paying for. Well one’s at my mother’s which is an hour away and that one is free so the price is right on that one but there’s and actually in the back building right now, its kind of pinned in so tight that its fine to park them for the winter but its not at all convenient to say hey, I’d like to drive that one. It’s just too hard to get in and out of there. Again, it’s been somewhat of an evolving process. I thought of maybe a two or three car garage but when the thoughts really came out and when you’re going to do this and take on the cost and the construction and everything it does, I kind of wanted to get it to the size I wanted and do it all at one time and be done with it and really get the one I would want and could use there. Mr. Schunk: Would you be doing any auto repair or restoration in this new building? Mr. Aeppli: No. Its storage, parking. I’m not much of a, I don’t do much of repairs. Maybe I mentioned that word before and that wasn’t quite right. It’s just for parking. I use them, they are all driven, operating. Mr. Schunk: Are they classic cars, registered? Mr. Aeppli: Yes, some of them are from the 70’s and some a little bit newer. Nothing older than that. They’re all running, driving cars. I don’t do any big work on them and no Mr. Schunk: When I was out there earlier this morning, I noticed there was kind of a maroon Chevy or Olds or something back there, probably a 60’s or 70’s vintage. Is that under restoration? Mr. Aeppli: That’s a Buick. I like the Buicks. That one, I’m not sure of the plans for that one. If I had more room, I might, that one really was well used and enjoyed and its best days are behind it perhaps. That one I may decide to, if there’s anything I can pull off of it and then that can go or something. Not sure about the plans on that one, quite honestly. Again, everything else that I own is plated, insured, driven with enough regularity, they’re running, driving, reliable cars and they do get used. But not in winter for some of them. Mr. Heilmeier: So this proposal that you have here, you are thinking right now would be the last one. I thought I heard you say it was maybe like, later down the road you would want to do something different. Mr. Aeppli: No, that’s why I’m at this point now with the four car and it’s more than I initially wanted to spend but, get it right once and do it and be happy with it, so to Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 7. answer your question, this is it. This is the last hurrah and do it, again I love the house, I love Tallmadge. I plan to stay here. That’s another reason to do this there while I’m there is because I do plan to stay there and I do plan to stay in Tallmadge. Mr. Heilmeier: Okay, I’m going to ask one more time. Anybody in the audience like to speak in favor of this variance? Anybody in the audience like to speak not in favor of the variance. One more time: in favor? Not in favor? Okay at this time I’ll close the Public Hearing (7:20 p.m.). Committee, you have the floor. Mr. Schunk: Well as to the three criteria for granting the variance, I do not see any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship from not getting an additional accessory building. As we have often told applicants, financial hardship or having to pay extra money for storage space is not considered a hardship under the Code. Second, I don’t see any extraordinary circumstances applying to that property that are different from any of the other properties and I do see some detriment to the public interest in that this property will have some 1,900 square feet of accessory building which I think is excessive for this area of the city so I will be voting against it. Mr. Heilmeier: Anybody else would like to speak? I need a motion. A reminder that the motion needs to be in the affirmative. Mr. Schunk: I will move that variance be granted to Subsection 1157.03 allowing accumulative area for all accessory buildings not to exceed 900 square feet; I would move that the variance to 1,932 square feet be approved. Mrs. Kuzior: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members voted against the motion (5-0). Motion failed. Mr. Heilmeier: Sir, your variance did not pass. You are free to reapply with something different. At this time, the variance did not pass. Mr. Aeppli: Okay. Mr. Heilmeier: Thank you. It is now 7:22 p.m., Case No. 910. Item #2 Case No. 910 Nick Dadich – Applicant/Owner 16 Oliver Road Variance requested from Subsection 1155.09 (a); Minimum side yard Setback required of 10 feet. Request variance to 3 feet; Variance requested from Subsection 1155.03 (c); Accumulative area for All accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 square feet; Request variance to 940 feet. Mr. Heilmeier: is the applicant present? Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 8. Mr. Nick Dadich was sworn in. Mr. Heilmeier: State your name and address, please. Mr. Dadich: Nick Dadich, 16 Oliver Road. Mr. Heilmeier: At this time, I’m going to have the Clerk read in to the record a letter that we received involving this case. We’ll go from there. Clerk: To: The City of Tallmadge Planning and Zoning Department – Board of Zoning Appeals. Date: May 3, 2012 Subject: Case #910 – Variance Request by Nick and Rana Dadich, 16 Oliver Road, Tallmadge, Ohio, 44278 (the “Applicants”) Dear Board of Zoning Appeals: I am Tom Thompson, owner of the property located at 26 Oliver Road, Tallmadge, Ohio. This is currently my primary residence and has been so since 1989. The Applicants and I share a common boundary. The southern boundary of my property abuts the northern boundary of the Applicant’s property. I am writing this letter to voice my concerns and ultimately my opposition to the Applicants’ request for zoning variances as submitted on April 12, 2012. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment out of town, I cannot attend the hearing scheduled for May 8. This commitment was scheduled long before I was made aware of the Applicants’ zoning variance request. Please accept this letter, along with the attached pictures and enter it into the recorded minutes of the hearing stating my reasons for opposition. Reasons: 1. Their requested variance from Subsection 1155.09 (a) – 10 feet from the property line to 2 feet from the property line is unreasonable and should be rejected. The shape of the Applicants’ lot is sufficient size to locate any approved garage without encroaching on the applicable 10 feet setback. Finally the entry door to my home is on the south side of my home and it will face the proposed structure. As a result, the proposed structure will be immediately outside my front entry door and the closer it is to the property line will only further affect my home and views. 2. Their requested variance from Subsection 1155.03 (c) 900 square feet accumulative area to 1,060 square feet is unreasonable and should be rejected as well. The home that is on the property is only 768 square feet. The proposed outbuilding would be nearly one and one half times that size and would dwarf the dwelling on Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 9. the property. A 30 x 30 feet structure is more than adequate for any intended purpose. Not only is the size of the proposed structure unreasonable, the architecture of the proposed structure is inconsistent with the architecture of Applicants’ property and the overall character of the neighborhood. From the picture attached to the requested variance, it appears to be a “barn like structure” with a loft. I have to stress that the neighborhood we live in is NOT farmland and does NOT contain any architecture that would go well with a 30 x 30 barn with a loft. Accordingly, this Board should reject the requested variance relating to accumulative area. In conclusion, this Board should reject the Applicants’ requested variances. The proposed structure can be located on the Applicants’ lot without encroaching on the setback requirements. Moreover, the scale and architecture of the proposed structure is inconsistent with the scale and architecture o the Applicants’ home and the neighborhood. Finally, Applicants have completely failed in their affirmative duty to establish that the variances are necessary because of the practical difficulties, unnecessary hardship or results inconsistent with the general purpose of this Zoning Code would result. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Thomas E. Thompson 26 Oliver Road Tallmadge, Ohio, 44278 330-633-3721 home 330-696-8411 cell Mr. Heilmeier: Mr. Dadich, have you seen this before we read this? Would you like to have a copy of this? Mr. Dadich: No. Mr. Heilmeier: Would you want to see the picture? Mr. Dadich: Yes, I guess I should probably see. Okay. Tom’s really good on the computer. By the way, I have a great relationship with my neighbor. Mr. Heilmeier: Excuse me one second. At this time I’ll open the Public Hearing (7:28 p.m.) Go ahead. Mr. Dadich: I have a great relationship with Tom and he’s good with the computer. I think that picture that he drew is hugely dwarfed. I do have a little bit of an adjustment. Dick came out to my house yesterday and we talked. I would actually like to reduce the amount going to the property line to 4’ from the outside corner of the block. So instead of going 2’ to the line I‘d like to, I only need to go up to about 4’. The structure that I want to do is just going to basically be an oversized two car garage which would be 26 x 30. It wouldn’t be 30 x 30. I don’t know where Tom got the Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 10. picture of the barn that he drew in there. I’ve talked about a lot of things but I didn’t say anything about the way it was going to look from that view. I haven’t even decided yet. I haven’t drawn anything up. I was just merely doing the first step of my application of getting a variance because I knew I had to get close to the line to get a decent size garage. That picture, that’s just a worse case scenario vision of what he has that would be next to my lot. To address another point in his letter, whatever size my house is and the garage, really shouldn’t matter because I plan on putting an addition on the house in the next three to four years, stated in my letter to you guys but its cheaper to do a garage first and I don’t have a garage. Basically I’m just two feet wider than a standard big garage. The problem here is that my property line is pie shaped. So the front of it is going to encroach inside the 10’. The back of it is going to comply. Does everyone understand what I’m saying? Can I draw it here? This is the front of my driveway, right here. That’s just a ballpark idea of why it gets closer to the line up front. That’s a little skewed but not more skewed than his picture. He said I could put it somewhere else on the property well yeah, I could put it anywhere I want. Everyone wants the garage by their front door. Dick, you saw my property. My property sits about at the highest point, 5’ higher than his yard because of the slope or grade of the land. I’ve got a retaining wall. I would have to tear down the retaining wall just to put a garage in the backyard. I don’t know how many of you guys have garages in the middle of your back yard. I’m sure if you do, it looks fantastic. That’s all I’ve got. Mr. Heilmeier: Anybody in the audience would like to speak on this variance? If so, I need you to sign in first. Thank you. One more time, would anybody like to speak for this variance. In favor? Against? At this time I’ll close the Public Hearing and give it to the committee (7:30 p.m.). Mr. Schunk: Well I was out there viewing the property yesterday and the biggest practical difficulty that I saw was that it’s a pie shaped lot and we always struggle with pie shaped lots. If you have a pie shaped lot you can’t build a pie shaped garage on it. It just doesn’t work. Also that property tends to fall off pretty steeply to the back of the lot, the wide area of the pie shape. To say that you could fill in that area of the lot would take a lot of fill. I can’t imagine doing that. Mr. Dadich: Here’s Tom’s house right here which is about, I’d say about 30’ from my property. This is a retaining wall which right here it’s about 2’ in elevation. When it gets back here, its 5’ and then there’s just steps that go down this back retaining wall that’s about 4’ across the back. Mr. Heilmeier: Yes, I saw that. Mr. Schunk: The other unnecessary hardship, I thought was, he doesn’t have any garage whatsoever. I couldn’t see any way that you could practically attach the garage to the house. It’s an awkward situation as far as the lot shape. I think there might be some public detriment in locating the proposed garage so close to the property line but Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 11. if the Board were to make a condition that the structure be no more than four or five feet from the property line, I think that would satisfy Mr. Thompson’s concerns. Mr. Heilmeier: So my understanding is that you’re going to amend your variance from 2’ to 4’. Mr. Dadich: Correct. What I was told was ask for the max and you can always reduce it. Well, as soon as I went out there and put the stakes in yesterday, my wife looked at me and she goes you are not going to build this thing like this. I said, you know what, let’s shrink it down. By the time I measured the front of the garage and made it 26’ and I had Dick actually hold the other one, it went out to about 4’ from the property line. Maybe 4-5’. That gives me a 26’ wide garage. It’s just a deep garage. Its 30’ deep because I’ve got stuff I’ve got to put in there. Mrs. Bushey: So I was out there today. Those, you have wood that was on metal poles, is that what you’re talking about? Mr. Dadich: I just did that so we don’t back over it. But that was the front of the garage. Mrs. Bushey: Can I ask, you were going to also in addition to your application, have you looked, you talked about adding to your house. Have you looked at like the whole picture of how, is this going be piecemeal for this. I guess when you start looking at your lot, what happens to your addition. Because like you say, the retaining wall goes down and your property goes out farther. Is that where you’re going to go out? Mr. Dadich: The pipe dreams I’ve had of doing my addition, just sketching them on cocktail napkins, has been to the south which is going to be the opposite side of the garage. It’s probably going to be, it would double my house in size. It would keep the same frame. It would be a ranch. It probably wouldn’t even look like an addition. It would just be like, kind of like when you put two modular homes together. That’s kind of how I envisioned my addition would be. It would be on the opposite side. Mrs. Bushey: So it’s not going to be we’re going to see something that’s going to be added to the garage in the next two years and then come this way from that porch that you have. Mr. Dadich: No. I’m in the restaurant business. I don’t have that kind of money. Mrs. Kuzior: I see a couple problems with Mr. Thompson’s letter. The first thing is the size and I think that he’s not realizing that the back shed is part of your square footage of an outbuilding. That may be the problem there. The other thing is the design of the building which we have no jurisdiction over anybody’s design. There isn’t anything we could do about that even if we wanted to. I don’t see a problem with it because of the hardship in your lot. I too went out there and looked at it today and I don’t see any other way to do it actually. And you don’t have an existing garage anywhere on your property and that’s about the only place to put it. It comes off the drive. There’s a deck Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 12. on the side of your house. You really can’t add it to the side. I don’t see a problem with it myself. Mr. Heilmeier: Mr. Lyons? Mr. Lyons: I had a couple of questions. We’re talking about making the building 4’. It’s shown at 30’ wide and 30’ deep and you’re going to make it 26’ wide and 30’ deep so you had 2’… Mr. Dadich: Those are maximum dimensions too Roger. Maybe when I get out there it might be only 28 deep. That’s the max it would be is 30’. If I change anything it would probably be the depth. Which if I change the depth, just by the sheer shape of the lot, it would actually take it farther off into my property line. Mr. Lyons: I guess my question is if you’re going to make it, if you decide to make it 26 x 30, maximum, then the area requested could also be changed on the application and then I see a 48’ dimension and I didn’t know if that was to the front of the house or the front of the proposed garage. You have a Mr. Dadich: What is it? Mr. Lyons: On your application you have a 48’ essentially front yard setback is what I’m Mr. Dadich: I think that’s how far it would be to the street. Mr. Lyons: To your front property line. Mr. Dadich: To my front property line, yes. Mr. Lyons: Not the street because the street would be another 10 or 15’. Mr. Dadich: I’ve got it to the street. I measured that to the street. It’s behind my house. The front of the garage wouldn’t be closer to the street than my house is. But its about 45’ from, if I did it that way the front of the garage would be 48’ going at that angle until I hit Oliver Road. Mr. Lyons: Okay, well front yard setbacks are required to be 50’ unless adjacent properties within 100’, the front yard setbacks are less and then you can use the average depth. Since you didn’t ask for any front yard setback, then I guess I’m saying it would have to be at least 50’ back from your front property line or the average depth of your house and probably Mr. Thompson’s. Mr. Dadich: Mr. Thompson’s is much closer to the street than mine is. I would say by 10-20’ closer to the street. Mr. Lyons: Just so you understand. Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 13. Mr. Dadich: So what Mr. Lyons: It’s going to have to be at least 50’ back and that would be to the overhang if there is a front overhang. Not the wall of the building. The same way for the side yard setback because there’s an overhang on that side just so we don’t ask for not enough. It has to go to the overhang. Mr. Dadich: What’s the standard overhang on the garage, a foot? Mr. Lyons: Normally. Mr. Dadich: Then I guess to play it safe my request would be at 3’. Mrs. Kuzior: I don’t have a calculator but my calculations come up to 940 instead of 1,060 overall square footage. Mr. Dadich: 780 plus my shed? Mrs. Kuzior: Yes. 780 plus 160 I think it is. 940. Mr. Dadich: I have that as well. So let me ask you a question here Roger, by the time I figure this out and then I look and measure it from the front of where my proposed hangover is going to be to the street, if its less than 50’ I have to reapply as a separate Mr. Lyons: Unless you can use the average front setback of your house and either Mr. Thompson’s or one of the other houses within 100’ of your property. Mr. Dadich: So I wouldn’t even have to come back here then. Mr. Lyons: Right, if you could meet either one of those, the 50’ or the average depth of either your house and one of the adjoining. Mr. Dadich: In that case it complies. Tom’s is real close. His is like, I don’t know, a long putt. Mr. Heilmeier: Any other questions? Clarification, from the city, he’ll need to initial the change in the variance, correct? Okay you’re going to make it 3’ and the square footage will now be 940 and then Nick you need to initial that. Mr. Dadich: That’s 3’ from the hangover. Mr. Heilmeier: You’ll be 3’ off the property line. Mr. Dadich: From the hangover, not the outside wall. Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 14. Mr. Heilmeier: We’re going to count the hangover so you can’t be any closer than 3’. If you have no hangover I guess you could be 3’. Correct? Mr. Lyons: Yes. It’s to the nearest point, the overhang or whatever. Mr. Heilmeier: You need to initial that and I’ll entertain a motion, please. Mr. Lyons: 940? Mr. Heilmeier: 940 is what we added up if we added it up correct. Mr. Lyons: Could I ask one other question? Is there a loft in this? Are you proposing a loft in this? Mr. Dadich: There’s going to be something up there. There’s going to be something up there for storage. I don’t know exactly what it’s going to be. I don’t know if its going to be a half loft. I have to look at the pricing. I haven’t even thought about that yet. Mr. Lyons: Do you know how tall the structure is going to be? Mr. Dadich: No. All I’ve done is drive around and take pictures and go I like that. I haven’t, I know that I would like some storage space up there for sure but I don’t know if its going to be stand on a ladder and push it through or Mr. Lyons: So it could be essentially a two story structure. Mr. Dadich: It could be. Mrs. Kuzior: I’ll make a motion that we approve the variance for the property located at 16 Oliver Road, Tallmadge, Ohio Subsection 1155.09 (a); minimum side yard setback required of 10’; request variance to 3’. Mrs. Bushey: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members voted in favor (5-0). Mrs. Kuzior: I’ll make a motion that we approve the variance for the property located at 16 Oliver Road, Tallmadge, Ohio; Subsection 1155.03 (c); accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 square feet; requesting the variance to 940 square feet. Mrs. Bushey: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members voted in favor (5-0). Mr. Heilmeier: Your variance passed. Board of Zoning Appeals – May 8, 2012 15. Mrs. Kuzior: I’ll make a motion that we adjourn. Mrs. Bushey: seconded the motion. All members voted in favor (5-0). Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Velma J. Williams, Secretary Kevin Heilmeier, Chairperson