CITY OF PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
THURSDAY, JUNE 23,
2005
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 28, 2005: Mr. Wells moved to approve: Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a second storage building for Peace United Methodist Church at 235 Diley Road.
Mr. Schultz stated that they already have one storage building and according to a new ordinance from Planning & Zoning last year that if there is more then one storage building requested that the applicant must request an variance. The zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The Church is proposing to put a Rubbermaid Smart Shed that would be 7-ft wide and 11-ft deep (77 square feet) on the south side of the Church. The storage shed would be 6.58-ft tall. Presently there is garage/storage building on the site and appears to be larger than 400 square feet. Variance Request: Chapter 1296.13 – Storage Buildings – One storage building not to exceed 120 square feet is permitted per single-family lot with and existing house in all single family residential districts. The proposed storage shed would be the second storage building on the residential zoned property. The proposed shed would be located approximately 400-ft from the property line to the north. The site has double road frontage; therefore, by code the builder is permitted to determine the location of the rear and side yards. The storage shed is a minor addition to the property that is over 31 acres in size. Therefore, variance would likely not have an adverse impact to any residential houses. Sheffield Subdivision is located approximately 300-ft south of the shed. The proposed storage building meets all the other conditions for storage sheds. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the variance request for a second storage building on this site. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Linda Hottle, after being duly sworn, stated that she was representing the church. The existing storage building is on the other side of the property and is currently being used for the maintenance equipment. The church would be using this storage building for outside toys used for the daycare and would be closure to the daycare area.
Mr. Wells moved to approve the variance request for a second storage building on this site: Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0
Mr. Schultz stated Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The builder is proposing to construct a 12-ft x 14-ft deck (168 square feet) on the west side of the existing house. Because the grade slopes from east to west approximately 4-6 feet, the western portion of the deck would be several feet above grade. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a PR-4 district the rear yard setback is 30-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 26.18 from the rear property line to the west. It protrudes almost 3.8-ft into the rear setback. The proposed deck would be located almost 21 feet from the side property line to the south. The site has double road frontage; therefore, by code the builder is permitted to determine the location of the rear and side yards. The variance would likely impact the lot to the west the most, which has an existing residence. This subdivision (Parade of Homes in 2003) has small lots with large and expensive homes. Therefore, there are several houses with large decks and the proposal would not be out of character for this subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for a deck with the following conditions: 1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 26.18-ft. 2. That a row of 6-ft high pine trees at installation or a 6-ft opaque wood fence shall be installed along the west property line. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Mr. Wells moved to approve deck with the following conditions: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 26.18-ft. and a row of 6-ft high pine trees at installation or a 6-ft opaque wood fence shall be installed along the west property line: Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for an enclosed porch at 860 Gray Drive for Ohio Energy Contractors (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated, Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The builder is proposing to construct a 10-ft x 12-ft enclosed porch/glass patio enclosure (120 square feet) on the south side of the existing house. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed enclosure would be located approximately 27.67-ft from the rear property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 7.33-ft into the rear setback. The proposed enclosure would be located approximately 47-ft from Delong Street, which is considered a front yard. The variance would likely impact the lot to the south the most, which has a single-family house. Single-family houses surround the site. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for a glass enclosure with the following conditions: 1. That the rear setback for the enclosed porch shall be reduced from 35-ft to 27-ft. 2. That a row of 6-ft high pine trees at installation or a 6-ft opaque wood fence shall be installed along the south property line. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Tony Ventresca, after being duly sworn, stated that he is from Ohio Energy Contractors. The house was already built as non-conforming that there is an inset on the back of the house and this is where we will be attaching the enclosed porch as a bump out. It will be glass and screen so there would be no site view obstruction. Mr. Schultz stated that the house was approved in the setback. The board verified that this is a corner lot and the neighboring properties owners were notified. Mr. Schultz stated that one of the reasons for the buffer recommendations is to screen decks from adjacent properties. Code requires that if the deck is within 6 feet to the property line has to be screened and in the past the board has approved or modified the requirement according to each site.
Mr. Cline moved to approve that the rear setback for the enclosed porch shall be reduced from 35-ft to 27-ft: Mr. Linek seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 4-0
D. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a deck at 678 Isabel Court (Manchester Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated: Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The homeowner is proposing to construct a 12-ft x 24-ft deck (288 square feet) in the rear yard of the existing house. Because the grade slopes from west to east approximately 3-4 feet, the eastern portion of the deck would be several feet above grade. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 23-ft from the rear property line to the east. It protrudes almost 12-ft into the rear yard setback. The variance would likely impact the lot to the east the most, which has a single-family house. There are several houses with large decks and the proposal would not be out of character for this subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for a deck with the following conditions: 1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 23-ft. 2. That a row of 6-ft high pine trees at installation or a 6-ft opaque wood fence shall be installed along the east property line. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Horace Hill after being duly sworn stated that when they purchased the property they felt that the home would have been turned a different way, due to the size of the lot. Mr. Hill does already have some trees at the edge of the property. Board verified that all property owners have been notified and there are no objections. Mr. Hill stated that all neighbors are alright with the deck addition.
Mr.
Wells moved to approve that the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced
from 35-ft to 23-ft.: Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr.
Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried
4-0
E. Review and request for a motion to approve a use variance to allow leasing of Uhauls for Pickerington Carpet Outlet at 695 Hill Road North.
Mr. Schultz stated Zoning/Building Permit History: A certificate of zoning compliance was issued on December 12, 1985 for new construction for a retail furniture use. The vacant site was zoned CC Community Commercial. A building permit for 695 Hill Road North was issued on February 14, 1986 to Glendale Furniture Outlet. In 1989, the CC Community Commercial zoning classification was revised to C3 Community Commercial. The entire zoning code was updated in 1989. Code Enforcement History: February 4, 2004 – City sent a letter-informing owner leasing of Uhauls is not permitted in the C3 zoning district. January 7, 2005 – City sent letter informing owner leasing of Uhauls is not permitted in the C3 zoning district. January 13, 2005 – City sent letter in response to owners questions from January 7, 2005 letter. January 17, 2005 – City received letter from owner of Pickerington Carpet Outlet. April 25, 2005 – City sent letter indicating that leasing of Uhauls is not permitted in the C3 district after a few months of research and review by the City attorney and staff. The letter outlined zoning options to pursue to potentially allow leasing of Uhauls in this zoning district. Existing Use: The owner operates a carpet outlet and leases Uhauls. The site is zoned C-3 Community Commercial which allows carpet stores but not the leasing of Uhauls. Zoning Issue (Variance Required): Table I (Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses and Conditional Uses). Automotive Vehicles and Equipment Retail Stores are permitted as a conditional use only in the C4 Highway Commercial District and M1 Restricted Industrial Districts. Automotive vehicles and equipment retail is defined as commercial establishments, which provide, as their primary activity, the sale or lease of automobiles and/or other motor vehicles and/or other heavy equipment such as auto sales, farm equipment sales, truck sales, boat or recreational vehicles sales. The City has interpreted that leasing of Uhaul’s falls under this zoning district and definition. Analysis: The owner indicated he had been leasing Uhauls since 1994 at this location. The City does not have any records requesting or permitting leasing of Uhaul’s at this location. According to the Fairfield County Auditor, Mr. Lattimer purchased the property on December 8, 2000. The leasing of vehicles at this location came to the forefront in January 2004 when Cat Tracks at 836 Refugee Road requested a rezoning to C-4 to allow sales of used cars. Cat Tracks was leasing cranes for a period time before requesting the rezoning for a used car lot. Conclusion: Staff supports the variance request because the owner has leased Uhauls at this location for several years without any objection from the City at the time the owner initiated the leasing operation. Since then, a review of the zoning code has revealed that leasing operations is not permitted in the C3 zoning district. Staff maintains the owner should not be liable for the past interpretation of the zoning code. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the variance request with the following conditions: 1. That the only type of leasing permitted at this location shall be Uhauls. 2. That the Uhauls and accessory equipment shall be parked on a paved surface per Chapter 1290.07(b) of the Codified Ordinances. 3. That any building or site plan additions and/or renovations shall meet City development standards.
Gary Lattimer, after being duly sworn, stated that he objects to the black top recommendation due to costs. Mr. Schultz stated that presently there is blacktop existing and it appears that they do park most of the equipment there. This is just a typical requirement that any parking surface in the City that is commercial requires blacktop. Board members that were not completely familiar with this business asked for verification of the business. Mr. Lattimer stated how the business runs. Board asked if the applicant had any objections to the other recommendations. Mr. Lattimer stated that he does not have any objections to the other recommendation and has no plans to do any other work at this time.
Mike Sabatino, who lives at 642 Montmorency Drive in Cherry Hill, after being duly sworn, stated that he has know Mr. Lattimer for several years and the property in question. He also stated that he applauds the diligent effort in keeping this business operating.
Marcie Lattimer after being duly sworn, stated that they have been doing this business for eleven years and do try to keep the inventory low due to the blacktop space. She wants the Board to know that they would like to continue doing business in the Pickerington area and hopefully be able at sometime to increase the blacktop area and business. She also stated the history of the building use: furniture store for sometime, then the carpet store and added the Uhaul later as a supplemental business.
Board
discussed the blacktop recommendation. Mr. Lattimer asked if this variance
would be transferable and Mr. Schultz stated that this would be just for Uhauls
at this location and nothing else. Mr. Schultz stated he did have one request,
if the second condition is waived that the record shows it is because this is
an existing use and a similar variance would not likely be supported for a new
business.
Mr. Linek moved to approve: the variance with the first two conditions as stated. Mr. Boruszewski asked clarify that as to parking must be on pavement and that there could be a time allotted to comply. Mr. Linek stated no to any other conditions. Motion died. Mr. Cline moved to approve: That the only type of leasing permitted at this location shall be Uhauls and the reason why the owner may park on the grass is because this is a grandfathered condition and that anyone else would have to come in for a variance. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Mr. Linek voted “Nye” Motion carried 3-1
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning