BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL Mr. Wells called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and were present. Mr. Wright and Mr. Boruszewski were absent. Others present were Lance Schultz, Dawn Romine, Joseph Henderson, David Watros, Shane Burke and others.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 30, 2006 Regular Meeting. Mr. Wells moved to approve, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

2. SCHEDULED MATTERS

A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a house addition at 775 St. Andrews Court.

Mr. Henderson stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 415 square foot one story addition on to the back of their house that would be protruding into the rear yard setback by 8-ft. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed addition would be located approximately 27-ft from the rear property line to the west. It protrudes approximately 8-ft into the rear setback. The side yard setback for the R-4 zoning is 10-ft. The addition appears to maintain the 10-ft side yard setback for the house. The property has residential properties on all sides of it. The addition would likely impact the property to the west the most. All surrounding lots are developed. The addition would have vinyl siding and dimensional shingles to match the existing house. Staff recommends that the homeowner make sure that they adhere to any deed restrictions and the Home Owners Association of their subdivision (Melrose). Seven Practical Difficulties Standards for Area Variances – the Board of Zoning Appeals should examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an area variance. 1.Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The beneficial use of the property would not likely be compromised without the addition variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered moderate because it would protrude approximately 23% (approximately 8-ft) into the required 35-ft rear yard setback. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The property has residential subdivision properties on all four sides. The addition would likely impact the property behind it the most but not likely to substantial detriment. 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining properties would not likely be impacted. 5.Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Staff would not have knowledge of this information. 6. Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely. 7. Whether the variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the variance. The spirit and intent of the rear yard setback would be preserved because the addition would protrude 8-ft into the 35-ft setback (approximately 23%). There are a lot of shallow lots in the City and it only makes practical sense to allow homeowners utilize their rear yards when the requests are not extreme. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the addition with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the addition shall be reduced from 35-ft to 27-ft. 2. That the addition shall match the existing house.

David Watros, after being duly sworn, stated he is the property owner and that he agreed with staff and that he had a letter from a neighbor supporting the addition . Mr. Schultz asked that the letter be submitted as an exhibit. Mr. Linek verified that all neighboring property owners had been notified and if there were any questions for the board.

Mr. Wells moved to approve with the following conditions: 1. That the rear setback for the addition shall be reduced from 35-ft to 27-ft. 2. That the addition shall match the existing house. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells and Mr. Cline voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

3. OTHER BUSINESS The next scheduled meeting will be Thursday, March 22, 2007 if there is agenda. Mr. Schultz asked the Board members on their feelings on changing the meeting date to be held on the same day as Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Cline suggested that this question be asked again when all members are present. Mr. Schultz stated that that was fine and that discussion still needs to take place with City Administration.

4. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further. Mr. Cline moved to adjourn; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells and Mr. Cline voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M., February 22, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________________________

Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant

ATTEST

_________________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning