BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2007

 

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

 

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

 

  1. MEETING MINUTES

 

A.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 22, 2007 Regular Meeting: Mr. Wells moved to approve,. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wright and Mr. Linek voted “Yea”. Motion carried 4-0

 

B.                 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 26, 2007 Regular Meeting: Mr. Wright moved to approve, Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wright and Mr. Linek voted “Yea”. Motion carried 4-0

 

  1. SCHEDULED MATTERS

 

A.     Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 229 Blue Jacket Circle for Key Homes Inc. (Shawnee Crossing Subdivision).

 

Mr. Henderson stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 16-ft x 12-ft (192 square feet) wood deck that would be protrude 4.2-ft into the rear yard setback. 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 26-ft from the rear property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 4-ft into the rear setback. 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 deck variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would protrude approximately 13.3% (approximately 4-ft) into the required 30-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 deck 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 deck would protrude only 4-ft into the 30-ft setback (approximately 13%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks protruded less than 50% into the rear yard setback. There are a lot of shallow lots in this subdivision and 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 deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 25-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.

 

Commission had discussion and verified that neighboring properties owners were notified. Mr. Schultz confirmed that proper notification was made and that this type of variance has been granted in the past in this neighborhood.

 

Mr. Wright moved to approve, that the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 25-ft. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wright and Mr. Linek voted “Yea”. Motion carried 4-0

 

  1. OTHER BUSINESS: The next scheduled meeting will be Thursday, June 28, 2007 if there is agenda.

 

5.          ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further. Mr. Linek moved to adjourn; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wells and Mr. Cline voted “Yea”. Motion carried  4-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7: 07 P.M., May 24, 2007.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

___________________________________________

Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant

 

ATTEST

 

 

_________________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning