Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF TALLMADGE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of Meeting Held April 10, 2018 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Date Time Place Members Present: Richean Kuzior, Melanie Bushey, Tim Gregg, Richard Schunk Members Absent: Chuck Victor Chaired by: Richean Kuzior Secretary: Regina Conti  Regular meeting  Special Meeting ADMINISTRATION PRESENT: Megan Raber, Law Director Adam Paul, Planning & Zoning Department ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED Case No. 998 William L. & Diane L. Spidle– Applicant/Owner 143 Nottingham St. Variance requested from Subsection 1155.09 (a) Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet required. Request variance to 5 feet. For review and determination. Case No. 999 Eric Tussel – Applicant/Owner 972 S. Munroe Rd. Variance requested from Subsection 1154.03 (c) Accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 sq. ft. Variance requested to allow 1,336 sq. ft. For review and determination. Case No. 1000 Mark and Kim Hussing – Applicant/Owner 847 Olde Orchard Dr. Variance requested from Subsection 1157.08 (a) Minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet required. Request variance to 7 feet. For review and determination. The April 10, 2018 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Richean Kuzior. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll called. All members were present with the exception of Chuck Victor. Mrs Kuzior: I move to excuse Mr Victor. Mrs Bushey: second  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 2. Mrs Kuzior: The next item of business is the approval of the minutes for March 13, 2018. Do I have a motion? Mrs Bushey: So moved. Mr Schunk: Second. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (4-0). Mrs Kuzior: Do we have agenda additions for tonight’s meeting? Mr Paul: No. There are no agenda additions but I do want to verify that we still need to confirm our election of officers for 2018. We did toward the end of last year when we had a change in appointments for this Board but I think that needs to be restated for 2018. Mrs Kuzior: Okay. Mrs Bushey: I nominate Mrs Kuzior for our Chairwoman. Mr Schunk: Second the motion. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0) with Mrs Kuzior abstain. Mrs Kuzior: I move to appoint Mrs Bushey as Vice Chair. Mr Gregg: second Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0) with Mrs Bushey abstain. Mrs Kuzior: The next item of business is item 1 – Case 998, William L and Diane Spidle on 143 Nottingham St. Are the applicants present? Please step to the podium. Case No. 998 William L. & Diane L. Spidle– Applicant/Owner 143 Nottingham St. Variance requested from Subsection 1155.09 (a) Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet required. Request variance to 5 feet. For review and determination. Mr William Spidle was sworn in. Mrs Kuzior: Please state why you are seeking this variance. Mr Spidle: We would like to have a 2-1/2 car garage on our property. We have 2 vehicles, lawn tractor and garden maintenance equipment, including rototiller, kayak. It will take 2-1/2 car width and length. We have a wall in the back with a walkway and limits us to go back and forth. This is the area we want to put the garage. It is currently a garden that we have torn out. This is a canopy type the upside down twinkie – it is ugly. I would like to get rid of it. All along here is a block wall with a steep drop off of a couple feet. We are trying to make sure we can fit this in without blocking the egress to the back porch and the patio. For that reason we need a variance to fit the width to the plot. Mrs Kuzior: We don’t have anyone else to speak. Is there anyone else that wants to speak? I will close the public hearing. Please stay at the microphone. Mr Spidle: I did talk to the neighbor when I first filed to Debbie and advised her what we were requesting to do. She asked questions and then nodded her head which I took that she was okay with it. Mrs Kuzior: she would come here if she wasn’t, probably.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 3. Mr Spidle: She has been here before. There is 50-60 feet from where the garage would be to where her house is. So it is quite another area. Mrs Kuzior: That is the person that is most affected by this? Mr Spidle: Yes. Mrs Kuzior: I was there today and saw your need for this building because you don’t have a garage, presently. And I see your hardship with the way the back yard drops off. You don’t have many other places to pick, in my opinion. I don’t see a problem with this. I think it will enhance the property. Mr Spidle: I hope so. We have tried to maintain the property and bring its value up. Mrs Kuzior: Any comments from the Board? Mrs Bushey: I went out there. Are you keeping both the sheds that are out there? Mr Spidle: The two that are in the back? Mrs Bushey: yes. Mr Spidle: currently we don’t have plans to tear them down. We were talking about taking the one down. The fact is the bigger shed, we can’t fit the lawn tractor into because it only has a 3 foot wide door and so we can’t do that. I can get the lawn tractor in the plastic shed – the Rubbermaid shed but then you can’t walk by it to get to anything else. Mrs Bushey: I have another question. You have mostly tools in that shed, the tarp garage that you have, right? Mr Spidle: I do have tools stored in that right now. I have not parked my car in there because we have had too many things going on inside the house. Mrs Bushey: So you are not planning on running a business out of that? Just for cars? Mr Spidle: Heavens no. I worked for 46 years and have no plans to do any kind of work. Mr Paul: I offer to your comment Mrs Bushey, we did look at the accumulative accessory square footage for all those structure in the rear and they would still be compliant with the maximum 900 sq ft. with the sheds. Mrs Bushey: Thank you. Mrs Kuzior: any other questions? I will entertain a motion. Mrs Bushey: I move approve a variance request for William and Diane Spidle for the property located at 143 Nottingham St Tallmadge Oh for the variance requested from Subsection 1155.09 (a) Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet required. Requested variance to 5 feet upon showing based on plans and dated March 13, 2018 and the evidence presented. 1. That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same zoning district or neighborhood; 3. The granting of such a variance will not be of substantial detriment to the public interest or to property or improvements in such district in which the variance is sought and will not materially impair the purpose of this Zoning Code. Law Director Raber: Before there is a second I just want to clarify that you stated the first two in the negative, I don’t know if you intended that? I wanted to double check.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 4. Mrs Bushey: Yes there will not be a substantial. My wording is wrong? Law Director Raber: That it would result in practical difficulties? Did you say that? Instead of would not? Mrs Bushey: will not. Law Director Raber: So you don’t think there is any practical difficulties in this particular situation? Mrs Bushey: it won’t be detrimental to the public. Law Director Raber: Correct. But typically if you are granting a variance you need to say it would result in practical – which I believe was stated was the wall in the back could be in this particular situation. I just want to make sure – you said it in the negative and I believe you are intending to have it in the affirmative. Mrs Bushey: correct. Okay. Law Director Raber: so if you will restate those sections. Mrs Bushey: It will be of substantial detriment to the public? Law Director Raber: No. That is will not. The first one I think you stated in the negative “would result in practical difficulties” and I think you said “would not”. And that there are exceptional circumstances or extraordinary conditions applying to the property or to the intended use or development that do not generally apply. I believe you stated it in the negative. I just want to make sure we are clear on the record. And the last one would be in the negative – it does not substantially cause a detriment. Mrs Bushey: Okay. Law Director Raber: Does that make sense? Are we confused? Mrs Bushey: I am confused. Because it won’t be detrimental to the public so that was a will not? Law Director Raber: Correct Mrs Bushey: and then will not materially impair the purpose of the zoning. Okay you said it will. Is that what you are saying? Law Director Raber: Nope. Mrs Bushey: I am sorry. Mr Gregg: She is looking at the third. Mrs Bushey: Oh, you are talking about the first not - I apologize, I am looking at the third! Law Director Raber: The first paragraph and the second paragraph I believe were stated in the negative and I believe your intent was to state in the affirmative. Mrs Bushey: correct. Okay. So it would result in practical – I am on the right page. I apologize. The strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general code and intent of the zoning code. Law Director Raber: and there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in this particular case. Yes? And the third one was correct in how you stated that. Mrs Bushey: I was confused. Director of Law: Okay I just want to make sure it was clear because otherwise it would not necessarily jive with the direction I believe you are headed with the vote.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 5. Mrs Bushey: correct. Law Director Raber: thank you. Mrs Kuzior: are you done? Second. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (4-0). Mrs Kuzior: your variance has been granted. The next item of business is Case #999 Eric Tussel, 972 S. Munroe Rd. Tallmadge, Oh. The owner is signed in. Case No. 999 Eric Tussel – Applicant/Owner 972 S. Munroe Rd. Variance requested from Subsection 1154.03 (c) Accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 sq. ft. Variance requested to allow 1,336 sq. ft. For review and determination. Mr Eric Tussel was sworn in. Mrs Kuzior: Can you tell us why you are seeking this variance? Mr Tussel: I want to build a garage in the rear of the property that is 900 sq ft but I wanted to put an overhang on it and I have to get a variance for that overhang which is 10 x 28. And also I have a 10x16 yard shed which I would like to have that remain on the property to store lawn equipment. Also a second floor storage area for Christmas decorations and other items. Mrs Kuzior: So when I first looked at your plans, I was thinking the second floor might be an entrance to an apartment or something on the second floor? That is not true? Mr Tussel: No. There is no way of getting a septic system back there. Or you could probably do it but it would cost tons of money. Mrs Kuzior: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Can you step to the podium please? Please sign in. Law Director Raber: That way we have documentation. If someone is here acting in their business capacity then use the business address. Mr Michael Perella, business address is PO Box 325 Tallmadge OH was sworn in. Mrs Kuzior: can you tell us anything about this? Mr Perella: Yes, I looked at this with Eric and …. Architect. It actually meets, aside from the yard shed, the building itself is the 900 sq ft. He really wanted the porch. It is really more aesthetics – looks much nicer in the yard. There is not going to be gas or anything. The upstairs was never intended to be any kind of a living space. It is not even built to code as a living space. Mrs Kuzior: it looked like a sliding door on the plans so I thought maybe it was sliding glass door on a deck. Mr Perella: No. Just access. Eric has several really nice cars. So it is a storage for his automobiles, truck. Mrs Kuzior: so this building is 900 sq ft without the porch and without the shed. Correct? Mr Perella: Correct. There is a yard shed now because all he has is an attached garage which there is only room for the cars. Instead of keeping them outside. This kind of goes down. Did you see the lay of the land? Mrs Kuzior: yes I saw. Not very visible from the street.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 6. Mr Perella: It is not visible at all. He has put a lot of money in the house – redoing the siding, the concrete, he has really improved it alot and he is at a point where he wanted a garage. He talked to me about it and we went to the City and they told him he would need a variance if he wanted to keep the shed. And if he wanted the porch. It looks better even if it costs more even for the neighbors. Mrs Kuzior: and this is going to have siding and everything like the house? Look like the house? Mr Perella: yes. Vinyl sided. Mr Tussel: I also have plans on siding the house the same as the garage. Mr Perella: The south and north side need resided. Due to hail damage the front and back were done and the sides did not get done. So the whole thing will match. Mrs Kuzior: okay. If there are no one else who would like to speak I will close the public hearing. Do we have any comments / questions from the Board? Mrs Bushey: How deep is your lot? Does it go all the way back to the trees in the back? Mr Tussel: Yes. The whole length is 375 ft. Mrs Bushey: it is a pretty deep lot. Mr Perella: It does meet all the setbacks, too. Yes, 376 feet. There is still from the back of the garage, 179 feet rear setback. 75 feet away from the house and 18 ft setback off the neighbor side. Mr Schunk: What is the width of the lot? Mr Perella: The lot is 135 feet. 84 foot setback from the north, 18 foot from the south. Mr Spidle: So it is about an acre altogether? Mr Tussel: 1-1/4 acre. Mrs Kuzior: Mr Tussel can you show us on the lot where that building is going to be so I can get a feel for it. I was there. Mr Tussel: This is the existing shed. It will start even with the shed. It will go 42 this way and 28. Mrs Kuzior: Okay thank you. Mr Tussel: Another reason I wanted an overhang is to have patio furniture and to entertain during the summer. Mrs Kuzior: sure. Mr Paul: I would agree. I had the wheel out on the property today and I would agree it was closer to 14 feet from the fence line, but it would be compliant with the 10 foot side setback minimum. That might take you all the way over to your wood stack. It looks like you have appropriate space and I agree the setbacks could be compliant if you are using that space. That is something we would look at with the standard zoning permit procedure after you apply to get something constructed. Mrs Kuzior: Just so you are answering under oath – you are not planning on running a business out of this building? Mr Tussel: No madam. Mrs Kuzior: Okay. Do we have any more questions from the Board?  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 7. Mrs Bushey: are you planning to buy more cars? Mr Tussel: I might. When I get the garage going I can probably work on some of them, fix them up for trade or something like that. Not as a business - just as a hobby. I enjoy doing that kind of thing. I have worked on cars since I was 15 years. Mrs Kuzior: Did you speak to your neighbors about this? Mr Tussel: I talked to Rich and Kathy - but did not talk to Chris (she is hardly ever home). I did speak to the people across the street who just moved in. Mrs Kuzior: Okay. I suppose if they wanted to disagree with this they would come. I personally don’t have a problem with this because I think the porch is an aesthetically nicer looking that having just a square building there. And I think it will enhance the property. It looks like a nice building. Mrs Bushey: And he will get his cars in the garage and your neighbors will appreciate having a neater environment next door to you. Mr Tussel: I can wash the cars in the back yard instead of the front yard. It is a little more private. Mr Schunk: will you be building this garage with an underground service bay to work on the cars? Mr Tussel: No. I do plan on getting a storage rack where I can park a car under it and on top. That is the reason the ceiling is 12 foot high so I can get a car rack in there to have two cars on one side. Mr Perella: So he can store 4 cars at one time. Mrs Kuzior: so the second floor is not a complete second floor then? You will have storage on the sides? Mr Tussel: It is just going have a plywood floor on it and the rafters will be open – just for storage. Mrs Bushey: so do you have cars in your other garage? Mr Tussel: No I do not. I can fit the Mustangs in there and my girlfriend has a Jeep. The other cars I can’t as it is only 22 feet deep. By the time I close the garage I can’t walk around the cars. Small garage. Everything would be more organized if I can get this garage built. Mr Tussel: I do love Tallmadge. I have been almost 7 years and it is a nice community. I’d like to stay here. Mrs Kuzior: If there are no other questions – I will entertain a motion. Mr Gregg: I move to approve the variance request for applicant/owner Eric Tussel for the property located at 972 S Munroe Rd. Variance requested from Subsection 1154.03 (c) Accumulative area for all accessory buildings shall not exceed 900 sq. ft. Variance requested to allow 1,336 sq. ft based on the plans and application submitted on March 15, 2018 and the evidence presented that: 1. That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same zoning district or neighborhood; 3. The granting of such a variance will not be of substantial detriment to the public interest or to property or improvements in such district in which the variance is sought and will not materially impair the purpose of this Zoning Code. Mrs Bushey: Second. Mrs Kuzior: Is there any further discussion from the Board?  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 8. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (4-0). Mrs Kuzior: Your variance has passed. Thank you. It is 7:34. This is case 1000 for 847 Old Orchard Drive. Is Mark Hussing here? Case No. 1000 Mark and Kim Hussing – Applicant/Owner 847 Olde Orchard Dr. Variance requested from Subsection 1157.08 (a) Minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet required. Request variance to 7 feet. For review and determination. Mark Hussing, 847 Olde Orchard Drive, Tallmadge Ohio. Mr Mark Hussing was sworn in. Mrs Kuzior: Can you tell us why you are seeking this variance? Mr Hussing: My wife and I would like to put an inground pool in our backyard at this address, 847. I did hear one of the Board members talk earlier about this development – it’s not very deep and most properties back here in this development have very little backyard space. So we are seeking a variance instead of 25 feet to 7 feet. A pool would go approximately right here. Here is where our pool would go approximately -where 25 feet is, what the restrictions are – we are asking for a 7 foot. We are going to put a fence from here over to here and back along the back and over to here. This is empty space right now. Greg, my neighbor, owns that property and he is here to say yes this would be good. Dustin is also here. He lives back here. He said it would be okay with him. I also have several of my neighbors that are in direct – Mr & Mrs Kot, they signed this note that it would be okay with them, this variance. The Kot’s are right here – they would be able to see the pool. This is Greg – he is here. Paula Henry signed the note that she said it would okay with her and Steve and Lori said it would be fine with them. Anyone who would be looking at this pool, they signed the note that it would be fine with them. Law Director Raber: Please submit the note to the Chair. Mrs Kuzior: Okay – thank you. Mr Hussing: The lots are not very deep and they are not made for anything. That is why I am asking for the variance. Mrs Kuzior: Because of the cul-de-sac you have an odd shape back yard. It cuts off to a corner. Mr Hussing: yes – most of my real yard is here. Mrs Bushey: so where the brush is – is where the proposed new house would be. Correct? Mr Hussing: Yes. If they would ever put this road – this is the City has a proposed extension – about 100 feet – on Ellen. Mrs Bushey: we talked about Ellen at the last meeting. Mr Hussing: This could be a buildable lot and this over here could be a buildable lot. Mr Paul: I would like to provide a point of clarification on that. There is not currently, to my knowledge, a proposal to extend Ellen Drive there but there is a dedicated utility right of way that makes up that 60 foot wide area that shows where that would be. That is a rendering Mr Hussing has provided to help illustrate you could still consider that to be a developable area for a new single family residential lot – if the variance and the extension of the drive were both at some point together in one viewing. Mrs Kuzior: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this or against? Please come forward and sign the paper.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 9. Gregory Peters, 853 Olde Orchard Drive, Tallmadge Mr Greg Peters was sworn in. Mrs Kuzior: So you own the property and show us where you are in reference to this pool? Mr Peters: I am right here. Mrs Kuzior: You are the closest person affected by this. Mr Peters: That is correct Mr Paul: This is Summit County’s GIS map. Mr Peters: This is my house and Mr Hussing’s house here and this is the rest of the property. Mr Hussing has proposed a pool for recreation and I believe it is appropriately placed. I realize the setback in Tallmadge is 25 feet but I believe that application should be considered for a swimming pool. With the regard to the setback – the plan as proposed – I believe is well thought out and I approve it. As he mentioned – there is limited space – and in talking to other communities – in regard to swimming pools – which I have – that met the restriction. It seems to be a bit restrictive for that purpose. If it was a building – it may be different. But it is a swimming pool. As I understand it – that is to the water’s edge – I am sure it will be constructed professionally and maintained professionally. So I recommend it for the Board to consider. Mrs Kuzior: Is Dustin here? Dustin Gibson, 815 Treat Blvd, Tallmadge. Dustin Gibson was sworn in. Mr Gibson: My property is over here. I was here last meeting for a variance approval for my garage which is in full swing right now. The pool the Hussing’s are asking for a variance for, the setback, I believe this is the best possible scenario that the Hussing’s have. The intent of the pool is for family time and as far as I am concerned anything that has to do with family time to me is definitely a just cause. The Hussing’s are trying to do this the appropriate way – make it aesthetically pleasing - I think this is probably the best situation we could ask for. I am 100% for it. I would like to recommend to the Board – that I am definitely in agreement. It will look nice and provide a lot of family time for them. Mrs Kuzior: Since no one is left in the audience – I will close the public hearing. Do any of the Board members have any questions for Mr Hussing? Mr Schunk: Who is the current owner of the adjacent vacant property? Mr Hussing: That would be Mr Peters. Mr Peters owns all this. I think it is 1.6 acres, right Greg? He owns all this. Mr Schunk: Would you be living on that property, Mr Peters? Mr Peters: No I have no immediate plans for that property although its probably going to be my kids will inherit. I have no immediate plans for it. I do know that there Ellen St stub extension. At this point, the property will remain as is. Mrs Bushey: That was my biggest concern when I saw this proposed house on our plans. I guess because if someone does want to build there then they don’t have the advantage of being here tonight to talk about – but since it was a proposed and it just on our diagram, it is nice to know that you are not planning to build something there. Mr Peters: This variance request has nothing to do with any proposed building - either now or in the future. At some point, if I am involved or someone else is – they will be before this Board again.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 10. Mr Paul: I will reiterate the point the reason you see that rendering is to help illustrate that a new single family dwelling could still meet the minimum rear setback requirement by placement at that location should future development of Ellen Drive and new single family lots come through at some point. I understand it does say proposed new home on it but that is just a hypothetical scenario at this stage. I can also share with the Board a document that in an effort to increase the area there you see how somewhat congested it looks and this shows you the building footprint as it exists for 847 Olde Orchard Drive, Mr Hussing’s residence. He recently took this replat application to our Planning Commission to acquire some additional space in the rear from Mr Peters. The Planning Commission approved this document that you see and so trying to get what he could get out of it. As Mr Peters just addressed the potential of the extension of Ellen Drive in the future. Mr Gregg: A seven foot setback- does that take into account a fence? Mr Hussing: Yes. This will be 7 feet from the pool edge to the fence line. Mrs Kuzior: and the fence will be on property line. Mr Hussing: I am sure the fence line will be on the cement so it will be 5 or 6 inches closer. Mr Paul: for your reference, our code standard, by definition, is that fences and walls can go up to and along common property. Mrs Kuzior: Right. Mr Schunk: Your proposed layout right now contemplates a rectangular pool. Have you looked at other dimensions such as a kidney shaped pool that might curve around the back and sit on the setback? Mr Hussing: I have not looked at that. Probably still require a variance of some type and probably would come back to this Board to ask for a seven foot variance again for any type of kidney shaped pool. A kidney shape pool come around – looks like Mrs Kuzior: Like a pear almost. Mr Hussing: Yes – so still it would loop around no matter what the depth. The problem with my property is I have no real depth – so that is why it doesn’t have 25. I can’t get a 25 pool – no matter what. Even if it was sitting this way or if going this way – no matter where you place it – it would never qualify for the 25 ft. No matter what, I just need a variance to get it in there. Mr Schunk: What are the dimensions of the pool? Mr Hussing: 18 ft by 36 foot. Mrs Kuzior: So even if you did change your mind and you wanted to get a kidney shape you would still need a variance for at least one corner of it? Mr Hussing: even if I put a pool this way – if I flipped this thing – and go this way, I still need a variance of some type. Or if I would go like angle it this way – this corner’s edge is still - would need a variance. No matter what the variance, I need a variance from the 25 foot. Mrs Kuzior: That type of a lot to have a 25 rear yard setback takes you to the center of the backyard anyway. I think the hardship in this is your lot is irregularly shaped. So you have a rectangle – a trapezoid. If we don’t have any further questions, I will entertain a motion. Mr Schunk: I want to make one more comment about this. Since we don’t the adjacent property owner to comment on having a pool 7 feet off this setback - actually taking away 18 feet of what he is entitled to in a way of setback, I take a different view on a pool. In the summertime – of course it invites the kids in and everything. I think a pool invites - possibility of a nuisance in there – depending on how sensitive your new property owner might be on the other side there. Mr Gregg: which property owner are you talking about?  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 11. Mr Schunk: The one that would be where the proposed new home is on the map. Mr Gregg: in the vacant lot now. Mr Schunk: Yes, in the vacant lot. Mr Gregg: That is a hypothetical, I think Adam said. Mrs Kuzior: Isn’t Mr peters the property owner? Mr Gregg: Yes. Correct Mr Peters is the current property owner of that. Mr Schunk: Mr Peters isn’t going to live there. Is that true? Mr Hussing: Mr Peters currently lives here in this home. Mr Schunk: Yes. I am reluctant to take away property interests of any potential property owner. I know it is easier to come in here now and know that nobody shows up to object to this only 7 foot of setback – but I don’t know – but I think we have some obligation to protect the rights of people who may be a property owner. This is a very desirable subdivision. It is not inconceivable that someone will buy that lot. Mr Hussing: I did get Steve and Lori – here – they willingly signed the note that they were okay with this setback. Paula Henry – over here – who has sight lines to this – signed it would be okay. Dustin, who is here tonight, said he would be okay with it. Mr Peters, who owns all this property and here, has come tonight in support of this. Mr Kot, who has sight lines to the pool – said he and his wife said it would be fine with them. Mrs Kuzior: I am of the opinion that if you look at a lot, and potentially want to put a house there – you are going to look at all of the surrounding area. If you didn’t like the fact that there was a pool there - perhaps you would not buy the lot. I know, my daughter lives on Jennifer Trail. They have small children and behind her was a pool and she was concerned about that – but made sure there was fence there before they bought because they walked the property. I think the person would have a better understanding, it they want to buy the lot. Mr Gregg: and the lot would still be buildable even with this. Mr Hussing: The other thing that could happen for Mr Schunk’s purpose. Adam can you go back to the proposed house scenario. So this person if it ever would happen – this house does not have to be specifically here. There is a big huge area. He could swing his house, which would be what I would do, I would swing my house so I am looking out that way and my back yard is all of this area. That is another. Mrs Kuzior: So this cannot happen unless Ellen Drive does get extended? This land has no access way right now. Mr Hussing: correct. Mr Paul: I would agree with that. As it exists now, it would require an extension of a fully improved public street to do so. Otherwise there might be a variance request to use the non-compliant frontage of where Ellen Drive ends now to be able to put in a house into there. Somewhat unique from that standpoint. Mrs Bushey: just to clarify – you said there are no plans in the works right now for Ellen Drive to be extended? Mr Paul: Our office has not been in receipt of any. I have not seen any that are proposing any extension or connection of that through to Treat. No. Mrs Kuzior: I don’t see a problem with this because if you were looking to buy a lot you would walk the property and you would know what you were in for before you bought it. Plus there will be a fence there. Mr Gibson: I was thinking with what Mr Schunk is concerned with. Food for thought. I definitely understand your concern. Definitely take your perspective and understand it. Would it be fair to say that having the  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 12. interest and the intent of a future purchaser of a property – wouldn’t that put doubt into any variance that was asked? Mrs Kuzior: it would for this situation because no matter what you do if it is varying from the zoning code it will affect that property. It is a direct backyard neighbor. Mr Gibson: What I am getting at is I just had my variance approved. Thank you. Wouldn’t the same scenario someone could say about mine -building a building and not just a pool? Mr Paul: I might suggest that these are not intended to be precedent setting applications. Each one is being reviewed on the merits of individuality – of each submittal. Mr Gibson: right. I was just thinking that same very thought could be applied to many and cause questions. Mrs Kuzior: and it could even apply to other properties who do have a house there and that person comes here and put their stamp of approval next week and the next person doesn’t like it. So we can only do with the information at the point we are. Mr Gibson: I agree with you – if I was looking at the property and I saw a pool and I wouldn’t buy it. Mrs Kuzior: If you didn’t like pools – or you didn’t like kids, right. Mr Gibson: I am for this and I think it is the best scenario. Mr Schunk: Let me suggest one other scenario – since we are going into hypotheticals. Has there ever been any discussions between Mr Peters and Mr Hussing about selling off a strip of land and then we wouldn’t have to have such a large reduction? Mr Hussing: On Thursday, April 5th – Mr Peters let me acquire 10 additional feet of his property all the way across my back of my lot so he let me acquire 10 feet so I could get my pool right here and ask for my variance. If I didn’t acquire – my pool would have been more in my side yard which is not very nice. It is back here now and I need a 7 ft variance to get it back as far as possible. We did go through that scenario. Mrs Kuzior: So you have done everything you can do to stay within the code. Mr Hussing: Yes – to stay within a reasonable code. Mr Schunk: one of the problems we always have – and this subdivision is a poster child for the problems we have - is the developers come and they try to squeeze as many lots into a smaller area of land in order to make them more profitable and so we end up with awkward shaped property such as what you have, that are really undersized for the things that people want today – pools, decks, basketball courts and they don’t fit. A lot of people are in your situation – an undersized lot, an awkward lot and we don’t have lot stretchers. Mrs Kuzior: we have this alot. And whenever a developer comes here and wants to put a substandard lot in and get a variance for that I typically don’t agree to that just for this reason. They are asking for less than this and to lower the square footage of the lots. I don’t like that either. I will entertain a motion. Mr Gregg: I move to approve the variance request for Mark and Kim Hussing, applicant/owner for the property located at 847 Olde Orchard Drive. Variance requested from Subsection 1157.08 (a) Minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet required. Request variance to 7 feet upon the showing based on plans and application submitted dated March 14, 2018 and evidence presented that: 1 The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 2 There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same zoning district or neighborhood; 3 The granting of such a variance will not be of substantial detriment to the public interest or to property or improvements in such district in which the variance is sought and will not materially impair the purpose of this Zoning Code.  Board of Zoning Appeals – April 10, 2018 13. Mrs Bushey: second Mrs Kuzior: one correction – it was submitted March 15, 2018. Is there any discussion? Mrs Bushey: I understand his hardship and your lot and having recreation. Sad you had to purchase property due to that but I do see your hardship. Mrs Kuzior: I agree and I think it will be an asset to your property. With the fence it will be private and nice. I will approve it. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (4-0). Mrs Kuzior: Your variance is approved. Mr Hussing: I want to say thank you to Greg and his wife, Sheri. Thank you very much. Mrs Kuzior: I move to adjourn. All members voted in favor (4-0). Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Regina Conti, Secretary Richean Kuzior, Chairwoman