LIBERTY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. Matt Huffman

Transcription

1 Trustees Shyra Eichhorn Mike Gemperline Melanie Leneghan Fiscal Officer Nancy Denutte Administrator Matt Huffman LIBERTY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ThO B July 24, Park & Road Services Andy Curmode Chairperson Bryan Newell called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Zoning Dept. TraCeYMUHenhOLMEMBERS PRESENT: Bryan Newell, Kelly Kammann, Becca Mount, Dana Costa, and Greg Tunis. OTHERS PRESENT: Tracey Mullenhour, Liberty Township Zoning Inspector; other attendees are listed on the attached sign-in sheets. - The PURPOSE: purpose of the meeting is: 1. DPV #18-16 submitted by Paul and Anna Robinson requesting to amend the Olentangy Falls Development Plan as it applies to their property located at 1041 Elderberry Loop, Delaware, OH (aka Lot 4902 Olentangy Falls) requesting a reduction in the side yard setback from 35 to 23-6 for a proposed swimming pool fence. This acre Planned Residence (PR) zoned property is located in Range 19, Township 3, Section 1, Liberty Township, Delaware County, OH. 2. BZA #18-17 submitted by Paul Dauerman for his property located at 8800 Olentangy River Road, Delaware, OH requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback from 60 to 44 -ii for a proposed new single family dwelling. This 3.08-acre Farm Residence (FR-i) zoned property is located in Range 19, Township 3, Section 4, Liberty Township, Delaware County, OH. 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Other Business Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Bryan Newell called the meeting to order and swore in members of the audience. PURPOSE: 1. DPV #18-16 submitted by Paul and Anna Robinson requesting to amend the Olentangy Falls Development Plan as it applies to their property located at 1041 Elderberry Loop, Delaware, OH (aka Lot 4902 Olentangy Falls) requesting a reduction in the side yard setback from 35 to 23-6 for a proposed swimming pool fence. This acre Planned Residence (PR) zoned property is located in Range 19, Township 3, Section 1, Liberty Township, Delaware County, OH. Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Pag.qfJ9382oo1 A nice place to live!!

2 Zoning Inspector Tracey Mullenhour received correspondence from Mr. Paul Robinson requesting to withdraw their application. Their personal situation has changed and they no longer wish to pursue their request. PURPOSE: 2. BZA #18-17 submitted by Paul Dauerman for his property located at 8800 Olentangy River Road, Delaware, OH requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback from 60 to 44 -i 1 for a proposed new single family dwelling. This 3.08-acre Farm Residence (FR-i) zoned property is located in Range 19, Township 3, Section 4, Liberty Township, Delaware County, OH. No members recused themselves from this application. ZONING REPORT: Zoning Inspector Tracey Mullenhour presented the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a permanent part of the record. Board of Zoning Appeals Member Bryan Newell noted that the plot plan submitted shows lot hooks and asked Mrs. Mullenhour if the subject property was an independent parcel. Mrs. Mullenhour believed that it was an independent parcel because of the current information as shown on the Auditor s website. The Auditor s website shows it as a acre parcel, which was carved out of a larger parcel. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mr. Jordan Butler, an attorney with Carlisle, Patrick and Murphy, 366 E. Broad Street, approached representing the applicant. Mr. Butler introduced Mr. Paul Dauerman, the owner of the property, Mr. Gary Kinman, the landscaper, Mr. Gary Bruck, the architect of the residence and Mr. Jack Butler, an attorney with Carlisle, Patrick & Murphy. Jordan Butler explained that the applicant is applying for an area variance, reducing the 60 rear yard setback from the house to rear of the parcel. The house, as planned, would be 4411 from the rear property line. Board of Zoning Appeals Bryan Newell asked Mr. Butler if he was aware the roof overhang is used in the calculation of the setback. Mr. Butler was not aware of this, but will make this correction. Mr. Butler believes the variance should be granted, as it would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Butler continued to address the findings of facts with his response to each. As to whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, Mr. Butler stated that technically it could be if a different house were constructed. However, the house on the application is laid out to take advantage of the parcel, including views of the pond, as it is without clearing trees. Without the variance, a house could be reconfigured, but it would result in clearing trees and would hinder the view of the pond. The applicant does not believe the variance is substantial, as they are requesting approximately 18. Mr. Butler noted that the setback was most likely placed in the ordinance to give enough space between neighbors, and noted that, in this case, this will not be an issue, as the adjoining parcels are all owned by Mr. Dauerman. Mr. Butler addressed whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment; as the contiguous parcels are owned by the applicant, no harm will be caused to neighbors. Governmental services will not be adversely affected by this variance. Mr. Dauerman did not have knowledge of the zoning restriction when he purchased the property. The applicant does not believe the issue can be obviated through other means; to redesign the house would involve substantial costs and to turn the house would affect Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Page 2 of 7

3 the view, potentially encroach on the pond and result in the removal of trees. The applicant believes the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement will continue to be met if the variance is granted. Mr. Newell asked if any part of the foundation of the former house will be used in the construction of the new house. The applicant replied no. Board of Zoning Appeals Member Becca Mount asked if the pond qualifies as a front yard water impoundment. Mr. Butler showed where the pond is located and explained that it is in the side yard. Board of Zoning Appeals Kelly Kammann asked what will remain structurally on the property. Mr. Dauerman replied that there is a house, approximately 1,200 square feet, which he is currently living in and which will remain. Mr. Butler showed the parcel at issue and located the proposed residence and the current house. Mr. Kammann asked if the existing two pool houses, a pool, an attached or detached garage and a barn located on two properties will remain. The applicant replied that this is correct. Mr. Kammann asked Mrs. Mullenhour if structures located on two properties is a concern. Mrs. Mullenhour replied that this is a concern and that when she first saw this application, she was unable to explain how this happened in the past. While some of the buildings may be older than the zoning in the Township, some are not and Zoning Staff is still researching these issues. Mr. Kammann commented that the Board may need to discuss how comfortable everyone is when there are structures on two properties. Mr. Newell stated that this is not a discussion to have in regards to this application, as the Board is considering the setback related to the house and if other violations exist, the owner will be notified. Mr. Kammann stated that he is not sure the Board should approve anything when there are outstanding issues on the property, even if this means the Board decides they are okay with the situation. Board of Zoning Appeals Member Dana Costa asked if the properties inside of the single property are legally hooked together, and asked if the surveyor considered this as a single piece property. Mr. Butler stated that he is not sure of this. Mr. Kammann noted that the Board must consider the surrounding properties as being owned by different owners, as they are each separate parcels. Mr. Newell stated that there are lot hooks drawn on the plan, so he disagrees with this. The Z symbol on the plan mean the properties are hooked, and considered as one parcel. Mr. Kammann asked what legal implications exist with properties being hooked. Mr. Newell replied that if properties are hooked, they are considered one piece of land. Mrs. Mount stated that her only real concern, besides the properties being hooked, is the second residence and the timing of that coming down. Mr. Jack Butler, Carlisle, Patrick & Murphy, approached and stated that he was involved in the purchase of the property, and, at that time, all of the buildings shown on the drawing all existed in addition to a house. The house which is there now, was a guesthouse; the house that was torn down was in bad shape, with the intent that Mr. Dauerman would build a new house with a similar footprint as the old house which was torn down. Jack Butler stated that he has no idea how long the other buildings have been there, but they appear to be very old. Mrs. Mount stated that the Liberty Township Zoning Code does not allow for two singlefamily residences on a single plot of land. Mr. Kammann stated that it is not all on one plot. Mr. Newell stated that the Board has to decide whether to treat this as one piece of property, then the Board must address the issue of two residences on one parcel; if the Board treats this as a three-acre parcel by itself, then the Board must move forward and consider that the other house is on another parcel but is encroaching on the existing one. This will be an issue for Zoning Staff to sort out. Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Page 3 of 7

4 Mrs. Mount stated that if they are all hooked and this is a single property then the existing house will have to come down when the new house is built. Jack Butler noted that the second house is a guest house and will not be occupied constantly when the new house is built. Mrs. Mount stated that a guest house is considered a second single-family house, and is not allowed in the code. There are no grandfathering clauses in the code for a situation such as this. Mr. Newell commented that the easiest route may be to adjust the boundary line of the small parcel so the existing guest house will not be encroaching into the other parcel. The Board and the applicant looked at the drawing and Mr. Newell showed a possible boundary line adjustment which would address the issue. Jack Butler confirmed that the issue is if the parcel is treated as one, then the existing house is an issue and if just the one parcel is considered by itself it will be less of an issue. Mrs. Mount stated this will still be an issue. Mrs. Mount stated that she does not believe the Board can move forward until it is determined if this is one or three parcels. Mr. Kammann noted that this issue must be addressed and resolved in order to sell any of the parcels at any time in the future. Jack Butler stated that this issue will be addressed and resolved at that time, but argued that it does not need to be addressed now. He continued that the only issue that arose when the builder applied for the permit with Liberty Township, the only issue raised was the setback. Jack Butler stated that they are here tonight to address the issue of the variance, as instructed by the Township, but they are now hearing other issues. Mrs. Mount suggested Mrs. Mullenhour address this concern. Mr. Costa stated that the applicant may request the Board to vote on the setback variance at this time. However, he recommended the applicant table the application in order to resolve the issues with the properties that are concerns with the Board, which may make them uncomfortable voting for the variance. Mr. Costa explained that the applicant may ask for the Board to vote on the application as it stands or the applicant may request that it be tabled in order to get answers to the questions presented today and so that the Board and the applicant feel comfortable with moving forward. The application could be revised and presented at a later date at no additional fee. Mr. Costa explained that with the information presented tonight, the Board has several very significant concerns and that they want to be sure the process is fair to the applicant. Mr. Kammann noted that the applicant may need a second variance as the current code states secondary structure buildings may not exceed 25% of the square footage of the primary living facility. Mr. Costa stated this does not count here. Mrs. Mullenhour stated they existed before the 25% was in effect, therefore, no variance is needed. Mr. Newell stated that the issues are the encroachment of the two structures and the actual existence of a second residential structure on what could be one giant parcel. Mr. Butler stated the only thing being done is replacing the existing house with a new house. Board of Zoning Appeals Member Greg Tunis asked why it was not until the building plans were submitted that the architect realized there was a need for this variance. Mr. Gary Bruck, of Sullivan Bruck Architects, 8 S. Grant Aye, Columbus, OH, approached and explained that they did look at the Liberty Township Code and the language was vague as to how to determine front and side setback. Mr. Newell stated the applicant is considering the area to be a side yard instead of a rear yard. Mrs. Mullenhour read the definition of Front Building Line as found in the zoning code: A line parallel (or most nearly parallel) to an adjacent street or road, touching the façade of a building at the point closest to the Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Page 4 of 7

5 adjacent street or road... This means the property line that is most parallel to Olentangy River Road classifies as the front of the property. Mr. Kammann asked when the parcel was formally subdivided and when the secondary structure and southeast barn was constructed. Mr. Butler stated that he does not have that answer. Mr. Newell stated that this occurred in There is no information as to the date the structures were built. Mrs. Mullenhour stated that according to the Auditor s website, the main house was built or remodeled in 1980 and the two other houses were built in Mr. Kammann stated that this is relevant information from a hardship standpoint because if there are buildings, which were allowed to be built where they should not have been, he does not believe this should be the applicant s fault. Mrs. Mount noted that there are instances of people in the county erecting buildings without the knowledge that permits are needed. Mr. Kammann believes the Board needs to know if this property is hooked or unhooked and if there was permission given for the structures to be built. Mr. Butler stated that he understands there are questions from the Board and asked if there is anything the applicant can do to help with this process. Mr. Newell stated that Mrs. Mullenhour is researching this issue and the applicant can help with property research and providing information if they find it. Mr. Newell suggested they re-plat the one parcel of land, which may alleviate some of the problems. As a potential suggestion, Mr. Newell showed Mr. Butler where the line could be adjusted in order to miss the corner of the existing guest house instead of going through it, the variance would be narrower but the other residence would be off the parcel. Mr. Newell explained that Mr. Kammann is also concerned that the barn is located on two parcels. Mr. Butler asked the Board if they would be comfortable with the setback variance if the guesthouse is placed on a separate parcel. Mr. Newell stated they would be more comfortable, but they cannot make a decision on an application that is being tabled. Mr. Butler stated that he is looking for guidance as to what to do and if the property line is moved, there will be setback issues with either one or both houses. The applicant does not want to go through the process of moving the lines, if when they come back before the Board there are still issues. Mr. Newell reiterated that the Board cannot make a ruling on a tabled application, but that the Board will be more comfortable with the application. Mr. Costa stated that every applicant who tables their application in order to make adjustments faces the same risks on whether the Board will approve the revised plan, the Board is not able or willing to approve a plan before it is presented. Mr. Costa explained that the process recommended to the applicant involves a surveyor and is very straightforward. Mr. Newell noted that if the applicant reviews past approvals of the Board, they will find the Board has approved applications with similar requests. Mr. Kammann asked if the applicant presented the Board with a formal proposal of a lot split prior to them making the split official, would the Board be comfortable making a ruling. Mrs. Mount stated that she would not. Mr. Newell stated that precedent has been set on this as the Board approved a plan with the condition that the lots would be split in regards to another parcel where there were going to be two structures on one parcel. Mrs. Mount stated that whatever the applicant comes back with must be legal and enforceable by Zoning Staff. Mr. Butler asked the Board to consider this application if the guesthouse and barn do not exist. Mr. Costa asked Mr. Butler if he is asking if the Board would approve the application contingent on demolishing these buildings. Mr. Butler stated no, but asked the Board to Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Page 5 of 7

6 pretend the buildings do not exist. Mr. Costa replied that the Board will not pretend but if he is asking the Board to consider the application without the barn and guesthouse that can be discussed. Mrs. Mount explained that the Board must work with code and stated that the applicant has been given direction from Mr. Newell that this is not an unreasonable variance request if the other issues are taken care of. Mrs. Mount continued that the property lines must be cleaned up. Mr. Butler acknowledged that the Board cannot rule on hypotheticals. Mr. Costa noted that if it is discovered the land hooks allow this to be treated as one large parcel and the guesthouse is torn down, then no variance is needed. Mr. Paul Dauerman, 8800 Olentangy River Road, approached and explained that when he bought the property there were two houses plus the main house, which were in bad shape. His architect, Mr. Bruck, told Mr. Dauerman it would be better to tear down the houses rather than renovate, as they were such poor shape. The footprint of the proposed new house is almost identical to the one that has been demolished. Mr. Butler requested the application be tabled. Mrs. Mullenhour stated that October 2, 2018 is the next available date. Mr. Butler would like the application heard as soon as possible. Mr. Dauerman stated waiting until October will cause a hardship as there are construction processes which should be started prior to winter weather. Mrs. Mullenhour suggested that the August 28th meeting may work; however, there are already three applications for this date. Mrs. Mount stated that four applications are too many and will not work. Mr. Butler asked if they can be placed on the agenda as a contingent, should an application be withdrawn. Mrs. Mullenhour would like the application materials at least one week in advance. Mrs. Mount stated that she would be in favor of calling a special meeting on September 18, MOTION: Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Becca Mount motioned to table BZA #18-17 submitted by Paul Dauerman for his property located at 8800 Olentangy River Road, Delaware, OH requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback from 60 to an unknown amount at this time for a proposed new single family dwelling. The motion is to table the application to September 18, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Liberty Township Hall, 7761 Liberty Road. Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Kelly Kammann seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Newell - Yes, Mr. Kammann - Yes, Mrs. Mount - Yes, Mr. Costa - Yes and Mr. Tunis - Yes. The motion passes with 5 - Yes and 0 - No votes. This portion of the meeting concluded at 8:15 p.m. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Kelly Kammann motioned to approve the minutes from May 1, Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Dana Costa seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Kammann - Yes, Mrs. Mount - Abstain, Mr. Costa - Yes, Mr. Tunis - Yes and Mr. Newell - Yes. The motion passes with 4 - Yes, 0 - No votes, and 1 -Abstain. Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Page 6 of 7

7 Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Bryan Newell motioned to approve the minutes from May 15, Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Becca Mount seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Mount - Yes, Mr. Costa Yes, Mr. Tunis - Mr. Newell - Yes and Mr. Kammann - Yes. The motion passes with 4 - Yes, 0 - No and 1 -Abstain. Abstain, votes, Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Bryan Newell motioned to approve the minutes from June 19, Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Kelly Kammann seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Costa - Yes, Mr. Tunis - Abstain, Mr. Newell - Yes, Mr. Kammann - Yes and Mrs. Mount - Yes. The motion passes with 4 - Yes, 0 - No votes, and 1 - Abstain. Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Kelly Kammann motioned to approve the minutes from June 5, Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Dana Costa seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Tunis - Yes, Mr. Newell - Abstain, Mr. Kammann - Yes, Mrs. Mount - Yes and Mr. Costa - Yes. The motion passes with 4 - Yes, 0 - No votes, and 1 - Abstain. 5. ADJOURNMENT Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals Member Bryan Newell motioned to adjourn the July 24, 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. All say aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals By: y Bue er - for the Zoning Secretary Date And: Boarof,6ning Appeals Chair, Bryan Newell date Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals, July 24, 2018 Page 7 of 7