REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING

ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON AUGUST 9, 2005

AT 7:00 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.

The roll was called and the following were found to be:

Present: Tim Lane

Harold Geeting

Steve Deffner

Gary Wagner

Tom Jordan

Absent: Stanley Spencer

Ron Coleman

Also in attendance were City Engineer Joe Ferriell and Law Director Donnette Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES:

The minutes of the July 12, 2005 meeting were read. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Gary Wagner and was seconded by Tim Lane. The motion passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)

Nays: None

SWEARING IN:

All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to stand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.

Z-05-06-Public Hearing-Elizabeth Smith-1515 North Barron Street:

Jordan: The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone lot 1651, located at 1515 North Barron Street, from ‘R-1A’ (One-Family Residential District) to ‘C-3’ (Community Commercial). This is the first residential lot to the south of Wendy’s.

This is a Public Hearing, I will at this time open the Public Hearing and whoever would like to represent this request or address it can step forward and give your name and address for the record.

Daily R.: My name is Rick Daily and I reside at 128 Sugar Hill Drive, Eaton, Ohio. I am representing the Hamm children, being Liz Smith, Barb Weadick and their brother Stephen Hamm. The property that is in question is located on North Barron Street. It is the first property directly south of the Wendy’s restaurant, and more commonly thought of and remembered as the property of Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Hamm. They had the home built for a number of years. Mrs. Hamm just died and it has now come to the ownership of the children and they wish to sell the property and they have secured my firm’s services to do so.

As of yesterday, they entered into an agreement to sell the property to Chip and Mary Christman. Mrs. Christman is here this evening. My understanding from the contract, which was represented by Eleanor Hake, that the intended use for the property is to be used for a facility for Mary to practice her business, which is a massage therapists’ property. That is the intended use of the potential, the contract is subject to the zoning being changed. ‘C-3’ does allow for that type of use under the general terms of it.

You are all familiar with North Barron Street and what has happened on North Barron Street over the last 10 or 15 years, but more recently in the last couple of years with the tremendous change that happened. On the west side of the street, which this property is on, from Debbie Drive all the way to the north end of Arby’s is zoned Commercial with the exception of the Church of the Brethren, the first property north of the Church property, which is owned by the Roberts family out of West Alexandria and then the properties that are owned by Steve Snyder and the children of Isabelle Coblentz, who are also here in attendance and the Hamm property. The church is zoned residential and the church is permitted in ‘R-1A’ district, but I would also think that if you looked at church and the business that is done there, better fitting would be commercial with the amount of traffic there. It is more of a commercial use than a residential or church use.

There is approximately 8/10 of a mile from Debbie Drive to the north end of the Arby’s lot. The property that is zoned residential from the south end of the Roberts property to the north end of the Hamm property, the south end of Wendy’s, is approximately 1/10 of a mile, so 7/10 of a mile is either zoned commercial, or is being in my words of commercial use, that being just the church parcel. In previous years Howard Burch previously owned the property on the corner, where Steve Snyder now owns, and also by Greg Owens, both of those owners did have a small business use in the property. Howard had a real estate office in there for a short time and Greg Owens had a home inspection business that operated out of that area.

The proposed use will create very little if any increased traffic, it is North Barron Street. I think that Mary would like to see a lot of business there, but I think even if Mary did see a lot of business there, she isn’t going to see a lot of traffic because of the traffic that is already existing there. If you are familiar with the property, you see that there is a turn around, there is adequate parking for the use there. There will not be any need to back out onto Barron Street because of the turn around.

Mary and Chip propose no major alterations or extensive or excessive lighting or any other outside structural changing. Signage would be compatible with that, it is permitted in the ‘C-3’ and the proposed hours of when to work with the City regarding any minimal impact that this would have on the neighbors. The request is somewhat similar with the one that this Board and Council faced a few months ago with the Roach/Sliver property that the Roach’s put their photography studio in at Edison and North Barron Street.

The property, unfortunately, is not feasible for residential use. The proximity to Wendy’s and the other businesses that are there in the neighborhood have stopped that from happening. The property had been listed for sale for 6 months prior to this time, under the residential use. They had no offers whatsoever on the property. I think everybody likes to smell Wendy’s fries and hamburgers, you just don’t want to smell them 18-20 hours a day. That is a negative fact for that. We feel that this is the right zoning, in as much as there is the use that is permitted under ‘C-3’. It is going to be a very, very low impact use for that property. I would be happy to entertain any questions you might have.

Wagner: Have you actually checked into parking requirements?

Daily, R.: No, I have not. This just came about 12:00 or 1:00 yesterday afternoon, that there was an accepted contract on it. They are willing to expand the parking if need be, to accommodate anything.

Wagner: Would she have more than one client at a time?

Daily R.: Probably not.

Wagner: So there would only be one car there at a time.

Daily R.: Probably only one or two cars, while someone was waiting. There is a two-car garage and Mary will put her car in that two-car garage. It is not going to be a thing where there are a lot of cars there.

Deffner: The only access would be off of Barron Street?

Daily R.: Yes. Anything else? Thanks gentlemen.

Jordan: Anyone else like to address this case tonight?

Ott: John Ott, 1001 Park Avenue. I am speaking on behalf of Mrs. Coblentz, who is the next house south of there. She would like to say that she is opposed to having this. As Mr. Daily just said, their house is not feasible for residency because of the business next door. What is that going to make Mrs. Coblentz house, with a business next door to her?

There is already tremendous amount of traffic going by, but there is also the case when she can’t go out in her yard comfortably at night now. People are always walking through her yard, increased litter, the odor, and the lights. If they have a sign up at night, there are more bright lights. She has lived there fifty years and why should she be penalized because they can’t sell their property for residence. What is that going to make her house worth? She feels like it is going to decrease the value of her property.

The question also is, why do we need more retail space? Eaton Center has six, soon to be seven, empty stores in it and it houses these kinds of business. Down where the Subway is, it is over half-empty. Dairy Queen is empty, Cassano’s old building is empty. I don’t know if this is an established business or not, I am not familiar, but is that going to be another empty storefront in town? Right now we are opposed to it.

There is also the question of the sewer line. When they were told they had to hook onto the City sewer, her and Joe, with a gentlemen’s agreement, dug one trench down through the yard and put both lines in it. Looking at it, I can’t tell whose property that is on, so what happens there if something goes wrong with the sewer and they have to tear it all up? Whose responsibility is it going to be? That is all I have and are there any questions?

Deffner: I want to make sure which property this is, the one just south?

Ott: The next one south. Would this set precedence then that if you have a house back in Romadoor, apply for zoning and sell it? It just seems like there is a lot of empty spaces around that could be used.

Wagner: I have a question about the sewer line, if I may? I am trying to remember back, I am trying to remember exactly what took place there. Was there one trench and two lines?

Ott: Yes. There are two clean outs.

Wagner: Actually there are two private sewers there?

Ott: Yes.

Wagner: That is the key. There are two taps, one for each house. They saved money by putting them in the same trench. If Mrs. Coblentz’s sewer goes bad, she will be the only one affected. If the property north of her goes bad, they will be the only one affected. They are two separate lines. The sewer, in my mind, would not be an issue.

Ott: But, if they dig it up, if their sewer goes bad and they have to dig it up and they damage hers, then they would be responsible for fixing her side?

Wagner: Yes, that would be my opinion.

Jordan: Anyone else like to address us tonight?

Daily R.: Mr. Ott’s points may be well taken, however they really don’t apply, as far as I see it, in this issue because the very minimal traffic, if she was open ten or twelve hours a day and she had fifteen to twenty customers a day, there are fifteen to twenty cars, I am not sure what the traffic count is on North Barron Street, a number of years ago it was something like 10,000 cars a day, the traffic is not an issue. The odor, I would think that the Wendy’s odor would take care of anything else that is going to happen and I don’t know that there would be any odor that would be associated with this business. As far as retail space, there is a lot of retail space, a lot available in the downtown area and there is some back in there. That is all for rent from a corporation. Chip and Mary do not want to rent, they want to purchase and own something of their own, which most of us in business want to do. I would say that if this was another Wendy’s or McDonald’s or a truck stop or something like that, you would have a valid concern, but I don’t really think this should be a concern, but I am not going to be living beside it.

Coblentz.: No, that is just it, you don’t have to live beside it, and I do.

Jordan: Anyone else wish to address the Board tonight?

Ott: I have a question. Say this business doesn’t work out. Something happens and it closes up and it is already zoned this, then there is no big deal of anything going in, right?

Jordan: That is one of the things the Board will consider tonight.

Ott: You could have another Jiffy Lube, you could have a small restaurant, and you could have any number of things. It sounds that that ‘C-3’ zone allows about everything under the sun.

Jordan: You are correct.

Fisher: In the new code, all of those uses would be conditional, they would all require special approval, and none of them could be put in as a permitted use. They wouldn’t have a right to just put them in. The new zoning code, when it is in effect, all those types of uses are conditional. You have to come back and get it approved for the lot you own. They wouldn’t be able to just go in and put in a Jiffy Lube, they would have to come back and get approval.

Ott: It would be easier because it is already zoned.

Fisher: Under the current code that is right, but under the new code it won’t be a matter of right. That was one of the reasons they made that change, to try and look at what would fit for the lot.

Ott: The bright light for a sign, it is already not very dark there and we weren’t specifically talking about the traffic going by, it is getting in and out. To leave from her house now, to go north, you might as well forget it. You have to go down to Romadoor and around. They have had to move their mailboxes across the road when they widened 127. It is just a big mess.

Jordan: Anyone else?

Jones: My name is Keith Jones and I live at 1516 North Barron Street. My concern is I live right across the street, with Wendy’s trees and that there, with the traffic flying like it does, it is like a speedway up there. I have already seen one fatal accident there, I don’t want to see another one. If they are going to have more businesses up there, they need to do something about the traffic. The speeding is tremendous.

Jordan: Thank you. Anyone else want to address this issue? If not I will close the public hearing and turn it over to the Board and I will remind the Board that they need to look at the applicable standards and use those as their guideline when they make their decision.

Geeting: Mr. Chairman, considering that I am a neighbor in this case, I will abstain.

Jordan: Thank you Harold.

Fisher: I will just point out two things. I don’t know if any of you brought your Comp Plan tonight, but you are welcome to look at mine, there was one difference between this case and the Roach case, the Roach property was in an Urban Neighborhood Commercial and Office area, planned future area. When you changed that zoning to ‘C-3’ it was in line with the Comp Plan, what the Comp Plan saw as being the future use for that area. On the current Comp Plan this area is yellow, Suburban Residential. That was the one difference between the Roach home and this one, different planning areas. I am not trying to influence you decision at all, but just so you know, if you allow Commercial in a Residential, it currently says that should stay Residential, you pretty much are opening the floodgates. You will have a hard time denying it in the future. That is up to you to decide, do you want that area to go Commercial or do you want it to stay Residential. Just so you know that the case-by-case basis might be a little harder if you rezone. If you think the conditions have changed enough in that area it shouldn’t be Residential, along Barron, then you are okay, but you should realize that you can’t do one and if the next one comes in you won’t be able to turn it down based on the Comp Plan.

Jordan: Joe, what is staff review on this?

Ferriell: Donnette has touched on everything we discussed. Mr. Daily did address the traffic issues that I was concerned about, as far as getting in and out of the property. I would like to point out that the Comp Plan does recommend to continue to be Suburban Residential and it is in the Romadoor Planning Area.

Wagner: Would you repeat that about the Comp Plan?

Ferriell: The tract is located in the Romadoor Planning Area which is located to the north surrounded by the Washington Landing, North Public, Five Points, Green Acres and Eaton Center planning areas, and continues to be the Romadoor Subdivision. Recommendations in the Comp Plan include: Area should continue to be used as Suburban Residential.

Fisher: I quoted from the Comp Plan on your sheets.

Wagner: I am interpreting this to mean that the Comp Plan suggests or is recommending that this property stay Suburban Residential?

Ferriell: Yes.

Fisher: I guess what I was trying to tell you is that I think tonight you are making more than just a single zoning decision, you are making a policy decision. The Comp Plan was done before a lot of that commercial development went in up North. It is a question now, do you think the Comp Plan should continue to apply as it is currently written or have the conditions changed so much in that area that it should change, but the current Comp Plan says Residential.

Wagner: This business she is trying to put in, massage therapist, would that fall under a Home Occupation?

Fisher: If it would, it would have to be a type B, the one issue would be that she would have to live there.

Wagner: It has to be a residence?

Fisher: It has to be a residence to be a Home Occupation, to have a sign she would have to be a type B, employees could not be more than two, and you couldn’t use more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area, you couldn’t make any changes to the exterior appearance, hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., parking and clients would be a maximum of twelve (12) a day, two (2) off street parking. Those would be issues, but if she would want to buy it and live there, she might be able to do that, but if she didn’t want to buy and live there, there’s a problem.

Wagner: She does not want to live there?

Daily R.: No.

Wagner: I just want to bring up a point of view here, Mr. Daily brought up the Roach case, and I didn’t support that case because I wasn’t ready to give up residential areas in that part of Barron Street. I am not too sure if this falls under the same criteria in that the land area up there has changed immensity in the last five to ten years. However, I am not sure I am ready to give up a residential area in that section either because of the Comprehensive Development Plan calls for it to remain that. What we need to decide is whether or not we want to see that frontage on Barron Street become Commercial in the future?

Fisher: Roach was not in a residential area.

Wagner: I understand that. I still was not in favor of that happening in that area. It is a tough question, if we zoned this ‘C-3’ you are opening up Mrs. Coblentz property and the other property on the corner to ‘C-3.’ Really all the way down Barron Street. That is what we have to decide, if we are going to go with the Comp Plan or we are going to oppose the Comp Plan and recommend to Council that we are going Commercial up there. Fortunately, this is a low impact application, what she is trying to do is low impact, it could be a lot worse than that in the future. Based on my opinion of Roach and based on my opinion of residential area being tied in with the Romadoor Subdivision, I don’t think I can support the application. It is entirely up to the Board, I am looking for feedback.

Jordan: Steve do you have anything to add?

Deffner: I would agree to that and also in looking at the applicable standards on (d) it says there is a legitimate requirement for additional land area for particular zoning district and I don’t think it meets that requirement.

Wagner: It meets (b) and (c) but you are saying not (d)?

Deffner: In my opinion.

Lain: I think it should stay residential, however it has changed up there. The Comp Plan is behind the time. That area has changed and it is only a matter of time before it all becomes Commercial, I think, probably within the next ten to twenty years. I think for now it should stay residential.

Jordan: I will accept a motion and in your motion please state the facts because it will be a recommendation to Council.

Wagner: I move for denial of case Z-05-06 in that it fails to meet applicable standards in Chapter 1135.01 in that there is not a legitimate requirement for additional land for the particular zoning district. The motion was seconded by Steve Deffner and passed as follows:

Ayes: Lane, Deffner, Wagner (3)

Nays:

Abstain: Geeting, Jordan (2)

Wagner: I have a point of order, if I could.

Fisher: Okay.

Wagner: Since there is not a quorum on this? We have seven members.

Fisher: You have a quorum, as two abstain and three voting. Two out of the three have to vote for the motion.

Wagner: Okay.

AB-05-14-Variance-Joseph L. Overholts-117 West Spring Street:

Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s ‘R-2’ front yard setback regulations to be allowed to replace the existing porch on the residence located at 117 West Spring Street. Who is representing this request?

Overholts: I am Joe Overholts, I reside at 405 Chestnut Drive, but I own the property at 117 West Spring Street. I want to replace the existing front porch on the house and the stairs and a foundation under the porch. It is all wood right now and I would like to put concrete under my porch, the front of my house hangs out over my porch. I just need to replace the wood with concrete.

Jordan: Basically, what you want to do is to take off what is there now and replace it with new?

Overholts: Yes. I do not want to build out anywhere that is not already built now.

Jordan: Joe, what is staff’s review on this?

Ferriell: It is ‘R-2’ central residential, the applicant is requesting a variance from the front setback requirements so he can rebuild the front porch. The existing setback is 0 and the required setback for the ‘R-2’ is 25 ft. We would like to point out that this would definitely improve the home and the area. It would be a legal nonconforming.

Fisher: There were two choices tonight. As a nonconforming use, which the existing porch is because it doesn’t meet setbacks, he could have gone to the Appeals Board and got approval to put another nonconforming porch on. What he chose to do was apply for a variance. That will remove the nonconforming status, it will be a legal existing variance, and it won’t be a nonconforming use anymore. If in the future he ever wanted to sell the home there are no nonconforming issues, he has a legal house. If you approve it that will take the nonconforming status off.

Jordan: When I drove up there and looked at this, you look at the standards you have to meet, everybody in that area has a porch that sits on the street. It is an older section of town that was developed long before the zoning codes were out. I think this would be a perfect example of why we do allow variances.

Wagner: I drove over there and looked at it myself and it meets all the criteria listed in 1133.07 standards. It is very similar to the one we approved on Mechanic and Eidson Streets. I think common sense prevails here and it meets the standards.

Wagner: I move that we approve AB-05-14 in that it meets the applicable standards as indicated in Chapter 1133.07, Variances. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:

Ayes: Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)

Nays: None

AB-05-15-Conditional Use-Dave Hoffman/Skyline Chili-1704 N. Barron St.:

Jordan: We do have a letter from RG Properties giving Landlords consent for Conditional Use and who is representing this tonight?

Redwine: My name is Ralph Redwine, I live at 8601 Bluebird Drive in West Chester, Ohio. I am the owners’ representative and we are requesting that a drive thru be allowed as Conditional Use for this restaurant. The zoning and the building permit have been issued and the only variance that we see is the drive thru and almost every restaurant in town currently has a drive thru and we are just requesting to receive that same consideration.

Jordan: This drive thru window will be located on which side of the property?

Redwine: On the north side of the property next to where the car wash will be.

Jordan: Okay. Any of the Board members have any questions for the applicant at this time?

Wagner: There is only one exit and one entrance, correct?

Redwine: No, there are two entrances.

Wagner: I only see one.

Redwine: Both entrances come off of the parking lot for Wal-Mart. One is on the south and one is on the north. I assume that if that is what you have that is what has been approved. I was under the understanding that we had two.

Ferriell: I am reviewing the Site Plan and the Site Plan that I have is identical to this.

Redwine: I might be incorrect about that, I thought there were two, maybe there is only one.

Wagner: It would seem funny to have one to the north where the drive thru is.

Ferriell: The Site Plan that I have upstairs is full size and it identical.

Redwine: I have seen three generations of this and I am probably confused.

Fisher: If the Board will note (c) (d) and (e) will not apply in this case per the Federal Court Order. (C) is direct access to major arterial and of course in the Federal Court Order we said no direct access on Barron Street. As far as a buffer, the Court Order said as long as those lots all went Commercial that no buffering would be required, per the Federal Court Order, no buffer. The actual curb cuts, street frontage, don’t really come up because per the Court Order they wanted it to be no Curb Cuts on Barron Street so you are only looking at (a).

Ferriell: (A) actually requires 7 or 154 ft. and on the drawing I have upstairs you could get seven (7) easily.

Geeting: You couldn’t if you had the other drive.

Ferriell: You wouldn’t have if you had the other drive in there. You would only have about 3 or 4 cars.

Jordan: That was my next question to you, if they had enough queue area.

Ferriell: That is really all I had to add.

Jordan: In looking at the drawing, it looks like the circulation pattern shouldn’t be a problem at all.

Fisher: The only other thing that I saw on the drawing that concerned me was the pole sign location. We are not allowing pole signs.

Redwine: Right. It is a monument sign.

Fisher: We have absolutely no pole signs.

Jordan: Is there anything else that the staff saw that we need to address?

Ferriell: Not with this application.

Jordan: Anyone else have anything?

Lain: I move for a favorable recommendation of AB-05-15 for Conditional Use because it meets applicable standards, specific requirements (A) and (B). Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:

Ayes: Lain, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)

Nays: None

Old Business:

Jordan: Do we have any old business? Gary, where is the City Council at on the Zoning Code we submitted to them?

Fisher: They will be doing their first reading at the meeting on the 15^th.

Wagner: I haven’t seen it.

Jordan: Why not?

Wagner: Is the first reading this meeting?

Fisher: On the 15^th.

Jordan: Any other old business? One thing I will bring up and Donnette you can reinforce this, when this new code goes into effect it will be stricter with the finding of facts when making a motion.

Fisher: I am going to be all over you about that.

Wagner: In other words the way you make motions like they meet certain requirements of Chapter blank, blank, blank, you have to?

Fisher: Why do they meet the requirements? You do, tonight on the one you talked about on the porch, you said it was an older neighborhood, it didn’t meet the setbacks, and right there you discussed one (1) and five (5). Everybody else had the porch and there you discussed number two (2). They do it, you are getting there, just not stating it. I find it meets standard (A) because this is an older neighborhood, the home was built there before setbacks were required. I don’t think it will be injurious to the neighborhood because everyone has porches out there.

Wagner: You have to make your motion that long?

Fisher: Yes. Here is why. We have been very lucky, it shocked me that we have never had a case go to court. If you have not made findings of facts, what happens is, they know what your concerns are. Abruzzo doesn’t have to give any weight to the decision you made if you made no findings of fact. He doesn’t have to give any weight to what you decided at all. He holds a formal hearing and they can present evidence that you may have never even heard and he gets to decide the case in place of you. If you don’t state the findings of fact that is what happens.

Deffner: When was the last time that has happened?

Fisher: Here? Wal-Mart. If you say, I make a motion to approve this because it meets the applicable standards, Tom is going to look at you and go, why? That is all you have to say is why. If you think it meets (A) why does it meet (A)?

Deffner: Okay.

Fisher: Special conditions exist. Then why do you think that? Because it is an older neighborhood and all the homes in that area already have them. It is just the “why.” They give it a fancy title of “Findings of Fact,” but it is just “why,” why do you think it meets that.

Jordan: It is just like on the drive thru. (A) It does meet the queue requirements required by the City and it will provide for seven (7) vehicles.

Fisher: We have let it slide because now you are not the final word, it goes to Appeals Board, but on the Conditional Uses you are now going to be the final word. Your decision is it. Becky is going to have to, when she sends out a notice of what your decision is, she has to include findings of fact in that decision. We have to have them to put them in that note.

Wagner: When the Appeals Board makes a decision, do they go through findings of facts?

Fisher: They haven’t been doing very well on that either.

Wagner: When the City Council addresses any kind of zoning?

Fisher: I am not worrying about findings of facts on rezoning, I am not worried at all. That is not administrative appealable. Any findings of facts you make certainly help, but when you have an administrative decision you are, by statue, required to make findings of fact. Your Conditional Uses, Variances, and Home Occupations those are all administrative. You are going to have make findings of fact.

Wagner: In the motion I made on the first case, I stated that it didn’t meet criteria and I read the criteria.

Fisher: That was okay because that was a rezoning. We are okay on that.

Daily R.: You are not in executive session?

Jordan: No. We are still in old business.

Daily R.: What do we do with that?

Wagner: I think it goes to Council for the final decision.

Daily R.: Should it really stay residential?

Wagner: That is what the plan calls for right now.

Daily R.: But is the Comprehensive Plan etched in stone? Can you over rule the Comprehensive Plan?

Fisher: Yes.

Jordan: Rick, the only thing I can tell you that I see, I don’t think we are ready for the ‘C-3’ because the things that can go in under ‘C-3’ if the land would ever sell. If the new zoning code, with Home Occupation and ‘Type-B,’ they would be fine.

Fisher: If somebody were going to live there and put a business in, they would be okay. They could do it as a Home Occupation.

Daily R.: Right. It would be approved under Home Occupation.

Fisher: Roach was in an Urban Neighborhood Commercial and Office. Changing her zoning was in line with what the Comp Plan said. It wasn’t residential that went Commercial.

Daily R.: What do you have next month? You have Jake Earley coming in with Aaron Mellings request.

Fisher: Someone bought the lot next to the Fifth Third. That is the one that they offered it for sale to Bo Gunlock and Bo said he wasn’t buying it because he didn’t think Commercial should go that far south. Somebody else has bought it and they want to change that to ‘C-3’ and Jake is representing them. We are going to hear this again next month, it is the exact same thing. It is the one across the street and it is Suburban Residential.

If you go against what the Comp Plan says for that area, you can’t do for one and not do for another.

Jordan: I will agree with Donnette’s theory in, you look at the Romadoor area, if we open that one up we will have the whole area.

Daily R.: You would have four houses.

Jordan: I can see that down the road.

Geeting: It is going to eventually.

Jordan: It will eventually.

Daily R.: You are going to have four houses. If you look at it and you could get a low intensity use, like Mary’s is going to be, that is what you should be doing.

Jordan: That is why we have the new zoning code, to help regulate those.

Fisher: In the new ‘C-3’ in the new code, what you are allowed to do is limited and the permitted is very low intense uses. You get into anything higher and you have to come in for Conditional Use and the Board can look at it and see if that will work.

Daily R.: So what should we do with this one, withdraw the request or ask that it be tabled when it goes to Council?

Wagner: No, I don’t think you should do that. I think you take it to Council for its own merits and let Council decide.

Daily R.: Council already decided.

Wagner: I am just one member of Council.

Daily: Ben has to abstain. You have to have four to override. We have the potential for three.

Fisher: In the new code, in ‘C-2’ Bars, Lounges, Taverns aren’t permitted at all. You can do Business Professional, Business Retail, Food Service/Catering, Health and Personal Care, Medical and Health Related Offices, Personal Service and Skilled Nursing Facility.

If you want to do anything like Convenience Food Store, Day Care Centers, Retail Food and Beverage any thing like that, it is all Conditional so the Board can look at it.

Daily R.: I understood what John asked is the result of ‘C-3,’ it there anything thing that is permitted. This is what is permitted under ‘C-2.’ If you want to do anything at all, you can’t put that bar, restaurant or whatever in there unless you come back.

Fisher: You can’t put a bar at all. That is not even conditional. The easiest way for them to get anything in there would be if someone would buy it and want to live there and run their business out of it. That is going to be the easiest way for you to do it, as a home occupation. You don’t have to get a re zoning, you can come in and get a Conditional Use Permit, you are allowed 12 clients a day, 7-7 you are allowed to be open.

Daily R.: If I talk to Steve, John and Sharon that really don’t make any difference as far as the Board is concerned, right?

Wagner: I based my decision on the Comp Plan.

Daily R.: If everyone would say this is the most wonderful thing that ever came down the pike.

Wagner: If you will remember I said that this is low intensity, which was a good thing. I just couldn’t go along with the zone change based on the Comprehensive Plan.

Fisher: The City got in trouble with the Wal-Mart because it went against it.

Daily: The problem you got, what Jake should better do is withdraw his request until the new code is adopted for Aaron Melling.

Fisher: It will be interesting to see because I’ve been told Jake’s whole argument against Wal-Mart was the exact opposite of that up there.

Wagner: It is tough either way. If you grant ‘C-3’ there I can bet you that they would want it changed because it makes their property more valuable.

Daily R.: What is highest and best use for those four properties in there?

Wagner: According to the Comprehensive Plan, right now is residential.

Daily R.: What is the highest and best use for those properties? Throw the entire Comp Plan, throw all books out the window, it is not residential. Not when you have Wendy’s sitting right beside it.

Deffner: You said you had the property listed as residential?

Daily R.: No, Carolyn Shepherd did.

Deffner: Were they asking something close to what they are now?

Daily R.: They were at $149,000.

Deffner: You said it didn’t sell so I was wondering if the price was the same.

Daily R.: It wasn’t like $200,000 it was $149,000 or $150,000 versa the $140,000 we are at right now. They didn’t get anything.

Deffner: I look at that value, it will bring more value because of, not as a residential use, but as a business use.

Daily R: If she wants that much square footage, which there is in that house, where else is she going to buy and buy for that price? They don’t want to rent.

Jordan: I will sympathize with you, but I guess that is why we have been working on this new zoning code for two years. This Board spent from January to April every week for 3 ½ hours trying to get the new zoning code done. I think the new zoning code will solve the problem. They are just six months ahead.

Daily: I can tell my clients not to get discouraged?

Jordan: I would say yes.

Under ‘C-2’ they can come in and basically put what they want in there and if somebody would resell it and want to put a Bar or something in, they have to come back and see us.

Daily R.: Still it would be going against the Comprehensive Plan.

Jordan: The Comp Plan is three years old. I think our next step after we get the new Zoning Code in is to do a re-zone of the City totally.

Daily R.: I am not sure what their objection was unless, she would object to anything that was a change. She doesn’t want any change.

They are dead in the water when she moves out of there. I wouldn’t want to argue with something that I would want maybe, five to ten years down the road.

Thank you gentlemen.

Jordan: Any other Old Business?

New Business:

Jordan: Any new business?

Fisher: On Monday night Council may be approving the City Manager to enter into a contract with Kramer’s & Assoc. for a zoning map. We want them to go in and re-do our current map. Our current map hasn’t been updated in, I don’t know how long. The City boundaries are not there, nor the way zoning has changed. We have asked them to first go in and update it, as it exists now. Staff will make recommendations based on what is in the new code. We will bring that to you. The reason we never had you dissolve your committee was, if we needed to get the committee back together to look at the map, have you look at the map and see if changes in the zoning district are where you want them. The great thing about the new map is, Kramer’s will do it for us as a layer that we can plug into our GIS system. As things change we can go in and update it. Then we can go in after every five or so re-zonings and re-print big paper maps so people can come in and see it. Hopefully we can also get it on our website.

Deffner: How big of a job is that?

Fisher: Pretty big.

Deffner: Will it take years, months?

Fisher: We will have it done by December 31, 2005.

Deffner: The City enters into a contract on that job? Did you bid it out?

Fisher: It is only like $4,000, so there was no point in bidding it out, and it was too small. They did a job for Lewisburg, they did it for Lewisburg and it is outstanding. The December 31^st deadline is for the final map. By the end of the year we will have new maps.

Wagner: Can I ask a question about abstaining from issues?

Fisher: Yes.

Wagner: Like Harold abstained from the issue because he lived back in Romadoor. Could he have acted upon his own without worrying about being a neighbor of Romadoor? We are all neighbors around here.

Deffner: You are saying, “Did he have to abstain?”

Geeting: I could also say that I was a personal friend.

Fisher: Part of it is, if he wanted to speak for it or against it. He could have abstained, got up and walked down here and testified.

Deffner: He could have voted if he wanted to?

Fisher: He shouldn’t have voted.

Deffner: Why not?

Fisher: Because he was a personal friend and a neighbor.

Wagner: That is the only reason.

Fisher: What happened there would affect his property value.

Deffner: That is why I would want to vote.

Wagner: Then Tom, why did you abstain?

Jordan: Smith’s are one of my customers at work. I work with them weekly.

Wagner: I bank at Fifth Third and I never abstained from Fifth Third issues. I just find that abstaining sometime is over reacting.

Deffner: If you ever have a question about it as to if you could or should.

Fisher: Just stop in and see me before the meeting.

Deffner: That would be the way to do it. If you wanted to vote and you had questions you could get direction.

Fisher: Abstaining is not just abstaining from the vote it is also abstaining from all discussion.

Jordan: Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Wagner: So moved. The motion was seconded by Tim Lane and passed as follows:

Ayes: Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)

________________________________ ____________________________________

Secretary Chairman