CITY OF PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER
27, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a screened porch at 924 Washington Street (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated: Staff Report: Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 12-ft x 16-ft screened porch (192 square feet) on the rear of the existing house. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed screened porch would be located approximately 25-ft from the rear property line to the north. It protrudes approximately 10-ft into the rear setback. Single-family houses surround the site but the variance would likely impact the lot to the north the most. Staff supports the screened porch if the adjacent residents do not have a legitimate compliant because it protrudes only 10-ft into the setback and the BZA has approved similar requests in the past. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for screened porch with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the enclosed porch shall be reduced from 35-ft to 25-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
There being no one to comment.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve: Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 4-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a deck at 976 Washington Street (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated: Staff Report: Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 14-ft x 28-ft wood deck with a 3-ft x 5-ft grill bump out. The 392 square feet deck would be located on the rear of the existing house. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 31-ft from the rear property line to the north. It protrudes approximately 4-ft into the rear setback. Single-family houses surround the property but the variance would likely impact the property to the north the most. Staff supports the deck if the adjacent residents do not have a legitimate compliant because it protrudes only 4-ft into the setback and the BZA has approved similar requests in the past. The subdivision has 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 the deck with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 31-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Robin Keyelmeyer , after being duly sworn, stated that she is the contractor and that if this variance is not approved they would not be able to have a deck.
Mr. Cline
moved to approve: Mr. Linek seconded the motion.
Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried
4-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a deck at 843 Ellis Street (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated: Staff Report: Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 12-ft x 18-ft (216 square feet) wood deck that would be located on the rear of the house adjacent to the sliding glass door. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – 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 west. It protrudes approximately 12-ft into the rear setback. The property is surrounded by residential properties and would likely impact the property to the west the most. Staff supports the deck if the adjacent residents do not have a legitimate compliant because it protrudes only 12-ft into the setback and the BZA has approved similar requests in the past. The subdivision has 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 the deck with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 23-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Doug Morris, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the property owner. The home was built at the set-back and there is a need for this variance so I am able to place a deck at the back of the house off the dinning room.
Mr. Cline asked what the maximum footage that has been allowed. Mr. Schultz stated that we have gone as much as half the rear set back, being 17.5 feet. Mr. Linek asked about an easement and there is none.
Mr. Wells
moved to approve: Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion.
Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried
4-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a house at 107 Cool Springs Court (George’s Creek Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated: Staff Report: Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct the “Madison” house that would protrude approximately 9.28-ft into the rear yard setback. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Planned Residential Dimension Bonus Maximums – In a PR-4 district the rear yard setback is 30-ft. The proposed house would be located approximately 20.72-ft from the rear property line to the north. It protrudes approximately 9.28-ft into the rear setback. The variance would likely impact the lot to the south the most, which is a single-family house. There is an existing house to the west while the property to the east is vacant. There is a 7.5-ft utility easement located along the rear property. The proposed house indicates a sliding glass door along the rear elevation, which would likely promote a deck that would be in the rear yard setback (variance required) and could be within 7.5-ft of the property line and 37.5-ft from the residential house to the south. Staff does not support the variance request for the following reasons: The variance would allow a house within 20.72-ft of the rear property line with the real possibility of variance for a deck (a 12-ft deck is practical) to be within 7.5-ft of the property line and more importantly within 37.5-ft of the house to the south (less if a deck is constructed on the house to the south). A different house model could be constructed on the lot without a variance. Lot 35 to the south has a constructed house that complies with zoning on a similar size lot. The builder is the developer of the subdivision and should have realized the develop constraints on some of the lots. The builder/developer has not demonstrated any valid hardships. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the rear yard setback variance request for the proposed house.
Mark Shield, after being duly sworn, stated that he is a representative for Maronda Homes. He stated the property buyer requested this model and understands the restraints on this lot and if they would ever want a deck in the future that they would have to apply for a variance at that time. Maronda would like to keep homes consistent within the development. Mr. Shield understands other models would fit, but they have considerably smaller square footage then the proposed house. The buyer has been offered different lots for this home but is set on this home on this lot.
Committee verified if there are any existing homes at this time and all relating requirements, Mr. Schultz stated that there are several lots that are extremely small and will require variances for decks. Mr. Cline, restated that minimum set back exceptions and Mr. Schultz stated that if both neighboring homes where to build decks that they would be within 15 feet of each other and would abut the existing easement.
Mr. Cline
moved to approve: Mr. Linek seconded the motion.
Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wells voted “Nay”. Motion failed
0-4.
A. Motion to reschedule November 24, 2005, regular meeting to November 22, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. due to Thanksgiving Holiday
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning