CITY OF PICKERINGTON

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL: Mr. Wright called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Cline were present. Mr. Cline and Mr. Linek were absent. Others present were Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Izella Erwin, Edna Erwin, Roger Ison, Greg Ratliff, Richard Ricketts, Paula Evans, Dave Evans, Paul Smith, Craig Hall, Carol Hall, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 22, 2005 Regular Meeting: Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve: Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken with Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Cline voting “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS

A. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard setback variance for a house at 51 Homestead Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant has provided a letter requesting this issue be tabled this evening. He stated since there are some residents present who wish to speak regarding this request, if the Board desired he would provide a brief summary of the issues and they can then hear the comments of the residents. The Board members all concurred.

Mr. Schultz reviewed the Planning and Zoning Department Report presented to the Board Members. He stated the applicant had constructed an addition to the house that is located within the required ten-foot side yard setback. He stated the addition was built within three to five feet. He further stated the required rear yard setback is 35 feet, and he built it within ten feet in the southwest corner. Mr. Schultz stated staff approved a building addition in May of 2004 that indicated it would be outside the setback, and the addition was not constructed as submitted to the City. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant had submitted a survey to the City that was included in the Board’s packet, that indicates it was within the setback.

Mr. Schultz stated there are several issues with the existing site plan; there are storm water issues; there are pipes that are out letting onto the adjacent property; there could be building code issues. Mr. Schultz stated the footer for the house addition at the finished grade at the southeast corner of the addition, the Building Code requires that a minimum of 32 inches of soil in height and width above the bottom of the footer, and it appears that has not occurred. He further stated developments are required to comply with accepted engineering standards as they relate to site grading, and it appears that will need to be reviewed to insure the site grading meets City standards.

Mr. Schultz stated after speaking with the applicant’s attorney today, staff would support the Tabling of this item to allow meeting with the attorney, our building inspector, and our engineer to discuss some of these issues.

Mr. Richard Ricketts, after being duly sworn, stated he was retained by the applicant earlier this week. He stated he would reiterate the fact that they have requested a continuance to allow time to gather all the facts, and to try to meet with representatives of the City to see what accommodations and agreements can be worked out. Mr. Ricketts stated further he would like to have the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Lane of the Building Department to review all of the items and try to address them and see if any of them can be resolved. Mr. Ricketts stated he would, therefore, officially request this application be tabled until the next regularly scheduled hearing.

Ms Izella Erwin, after being duly sworn, stated she owns the property next to the applicant’s property, and their sump pump drainage and gutter drainage is on her property. She stated they have been dealing with this issue for three years, and she has met with City officials several times and she has had no results over the past three years. Ms Erwin stated Mr. Hall, the applicant, had the property surveyed and he knows exactly where the pins should be. She stated she had a survey done in July of 2004, and Mr. Hall pulled the stakes up and threw them away so if the City came for an inspection they would not see how close he was to the property line. She stated further she had been told that she could build anything on her property that conforms to the area, and Mr. Hall’s building does not conform to anything there. Mr. Cline clarified that Ms Erwin’s driveway runs next to the addition. Ms Erwin stated she felt this building was constructed against all the rules, and it should be torn down.

Mr. Paul Smith, after being duly sworn, stated clearly this house is in violation. He stated at first this was supposed to be a garage, and then all of a sudden it turned into a double story house. Mr. Smith stated he does not know why the inspectors did not ever go in to inspect the house. Mr. Schultz clarified that Mr. Hall submitted a site plan that indicated the building would be ten feet from the property line. Mr. Schultz stated it was also his understanding that no inspections have been done there for a significant amount of time. Mr. Smith stated he would request that at least one or two representatives from the neighbors be allowed to sit in the meeting that the City would have with Mr. Hall, his attorney, and the City staff. Mr. Cline clarified that it would be appropriate for the City staff to meet with the applicant and their attorney first, and Mr. Ricketts stated he thought that would be helpful. Mr. Ricketts stated he would personally welcome the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and interface with them to try and address issues in addition to meeting with the City.

Mr. Schultz stated the next Board of Zoning Appeals hearing will be on March 23, 2006, and the neighbors will receive public notice again of that meeting. Ms Erwin inquired if she should have an attorney present with her and Mr. Schultz stated that would be her decision. Mr. Smith further requested a copy of the staff report Mr. Schultz had provided the Board Members and Mr. Schultz stated he would get a copy for him.

Mr. Cline moved to Table this item; Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0. (TABLED)

B. Review and request for motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for Embroidery Barn located at 591 Hill Road North. Mr. Schultz reviewed staff’s report provided to the Board Members. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the rear yard variance with the following conditions:

(1) That the rear yard setback shall be reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet.

(2) That a six-foot high opaque wood fence shall be installed along the western perimeter of the site.

(3) That if any of the existing pine trees are damaged for any reason, they must be replaced with the same or nearly the same size pine trees.

Mr. Richard Ricketts, after reaffirming he was duly sworn, stated he was representing the applicants, Paula and Dave Evans. Mr. Ricketts stated he would like to distribute a set of photographs to show what is going on on this property and he would request Mr. Schultz add these to the record. Mr. Ricketts stated what they were asking this evening was approval to construct the new part of the building so that it is effectively at the exact same dimension off of the rear property line as the currently existing building. Mr. Ricketts stated there is, in fact, a lot of standing buffer already in existence on the site. He stated he would agree with Mr. Schultz that in the first five to six feet they do not provide a complete Class A buffer because it is not completely opaque, however, it is about as close to being opaque as a series of trees can be based upon the established nature of what already exists. Mr. Ricketts stated further the neighboring property, Taranto’s Pizza, may be connecting to the City’s utilities and the line is going to extend beyond the property line to connect. He stated there is likely to be some construction in that particular area. He stated they would be working with a fairly thin line to be able to put that line in, and that factor would affect the erection of a fence in that area. Mr. Cline clarified the rear yard setback in that district is 20 to 30 feet. Mr. Ricketts stated his clients are happy with staff’s recommendations with one caveat. He stated that caveat is the request by staff that the variance be approved with the six-foot high opaque wood fence being installed. He stated they were asking the variance be approved without that requirement because in the context of what they currently have, and the improved building that will be constructed. Mr. Ricketts stated this building would serve as almost a complete noise block from S.R. 256. Mr. Ricketts stated secondly, would the neighbors prefer to look at lap siding on the back of the barn or a fence? He continued a fence does not fit architecturally with what they are doing on this site. He stated they have a lot of landscaping, the owners are committed to perpetuating the landscape, and they would rather see natural green than seeing a fence. Mr. Ricketts stated as Mr. Schultz has stated in his report, the existing pine trees appear to provide a sufficient buffer between the residential properties and Embroidery Barn but does not meet the specific requirements of a Type A buffer. Mr. Ricketts stated he agreed it did not meet the technical standards of a Type A buffer, but he felt by looking at the pictures the Board would ask what they were getting by the inclusion of a fence. Mr. Ricketts further stated as a part of the approvals they have obtained for this building, they still have to go back to Planning and Zoning Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the landscaping plan and signage plan. Mr. Ricketts stated it would be his suggestion that they are doing a very good job and it is appropriate to grant the setback variance if, in fact, the Planning and Zoning Commission feels they need to do a Type A system, that group could make the decision if a Type A buffer is appropriate. Mr. Ricketts stated in summary, he and his client agree with staff conditions 1 and 3, but would request the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the variance without condition 2, under the realization they will still have to address this issue with the Planning and Zoning Commission when they go before them for their Landscaping Certificate of Appropriateness.

Mr. Cline clarified that Mr. Ricketts was correct, the Planning and Zoning Commission would have to approve the variance, if you will, for a fence or a Type A buffer. Mr. Schultz stated he does not have the authority to waive a zoning condition when a variance was not requested. He stated also, from a consistency perspective, Giant Eagle and Rutherford Auto Body have had the same situation. Mr. Wright moved to approve the variance request with the rear yard setback being reduced from 50 to 30; that if any of the existing pine trees are damaged for any reason, they must be replaced with the same or near same size pine trees; Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

4. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Schultz stated the next meeting would be March 23, 2006. Mr. Cline stated he would request a briefing before the next meeting so this Board can find out the results of the meetings regarding the property at 51 Homestead Drive. He stated he felt it would be beneficial for the members who were not present this evening. Mr. Schultz stated he would contact all of the Board members with the results of the meeting and then they can determine if they want to schedule a brief meeting prior to the next hearing.

5. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further. Mr. Cline moved to adjourn; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voting “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:50 P.M., February 23, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk