Special Meeting/Public Hearing for Variance Application
Submitted by
Chair Andrea Kacinari called the meeting to order at
Upon motion by Dave Parker, duly seconded by Lisa Takach,
the minutes of the
The following items were received and distributed to the board members:
(1) Zoning
Inspector 2009 Zoning Permits report through
(2) May 2009 Grassroots Clippings newsletter
(3)
(4) Map
of
Chair Kacinari opened the public hearing relative to the Application for Zoning Variance submitted by Lafayette Township Fire Department requesting a variance from Sections 303.03 B & C, 303.03 E, 303.03 F and 303.03G for property at 5834 Heather Hedge Road, Chippewa Lake, Ohio (parcel #020-10D-38-145).
The zoning secretary read into the record the Certificate of Mailing indicating that the letter notifying the adjacent property owners of tonight’s hearing was mailed on 5/6/09.
The Chair ascertained that the Board members had the complete application and that it had been reviewed by each of them.
Those persons sworn in by Chair Kacinari for purposes of this public hearing included: Trustee Lynda Bowers (applicant on behalf of the Lafayette Township Fire Department), and Marla Meszar.
Lynda Bowers – The Lafayette Township Fire Department has a
station on
Parker – What’s the distance of the back of that shed to the property next door?
Bowers – There’s a fence there. You have a site plan that actually has the measurement on it. Also the photograph that you have shows the old shed on the property and it’s pretty close to the boundary line. The application states exactly what the variance request is (application papers were reviewed). From the rear yard there is a 50’ setback and a 49’ variance is requested. The existing shed used the fence as the line and they want to put the new shed back exactly where the other one was so it would be a 49’ variance.
Takach – Where does the extra 4’ come in, is it toward the property line or into the parking lot area?
Bowers – It’s lengthwise going to the west into the parking lot.
Takach – Is there a reason why it’s 4’ bigger?
Bowers – What was explained to me was that they bought a standard building that was already constructed and that’s the size it was and I’m sure the extra 4’ might come in handy. Is that a fair statement, Brad?
Brad Winter – Yes.
Bowers – That’s the township assistant fire chief Brad Winter who just said yes.
Chair Kacinari – Any other questions? Did anyone want to speak on behalf of the applicant? Is there anybody here for any opposition? Does anybody else have any other questions or anything that applies to the Duncan Factors that they would like to state?
Parker – My only concern is that it is sitting on the property line, which is the fence I suppose.
Bowers – It’s 1’ off which is where it’s been for all those years.
Parker – Any nobody has complained over the years.
Bowers - Actually we got a complaint last year when we went in and killed all of poison ivy that had been growing on the shed, as they wanted the ivy to grow back up.
Marla Meszar – I live at
Chair Kacinari – Anything else to be discussed?
Takach – I find Duncan Factor #2 to be applicable – I don’t think that the variance is substantial in nature. Obviously adjacent property owners that have appeared today do not have a problem with it so I believe Duncan Factor #3 is satisfied. As to Duncan Factor #6 obviously there is no other alternative due to safety concerns. Relative to Duncan Factor #7 after reviewing the purposes and intent of the local commercial district, which is for service and administrative establishments to serve the needs of the residents, obviously helping the fire department provide some additional storage would satisfy this factor.
Chair Kacinari – What about
Takach – Yes, that would apply also for safety reasons.
Chair Kacinari – I think so. Is everybody in agreement or does anybody think anything else applies or doesn’t apply?
Mark Riffle – I agree with it.
Dave Parker – I agree with it.
Dave Jenkins – I agree with it.
Lisa Takach – I obviously agree with it
Chair Kacinari – I agree with it also.
Mark Riffle – I make a motion to approve the zoning variance as written in the application:
A 43-ft. variance from Section 303.03 B & C (175 ft. continuous feet; front & width). The Township owns 215 continuous feet, however it is three separate lots – 53 ft., 132 ft. and 30 ft. vacated alley = 215 ft.;
A 24-ft. variance from Section 303.03 E (25 ft. side yard);
A 49-ft. variance from Section 303.03 F (50 ft. rear yard);
A 99-ft. variance from Section 303.03 G (100 ft. from residential use).
David Jenkins - I second the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Mark Riffle - yes
Dave Parker - yes
David Jenkins - yes
Lisa Takach - yes
Andrea Kacinari - yes
The motion passed with the variance being granted as per the application. The public hearing was closed.
The applicant was advised that under the law the public has thirty days in which to appeal the decision. At such time as the decision form has been prepared and signed and the minutes approved a copy will be provided to the applicant. The applicant can then apply for a building permit from the zoning inspector.
The Board agreed that the meeting to sign minutes would be
scheduled for
The next regular quarterly meeting of the BZA is scheduled
for
Upon motion by Mark Riffle, seconded by Andrea Kacinari, it
was unanimously approved that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at
Marlene L. Oiler, Certified PP, PLS
(Note: Minutes
approved on