REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON JANUARY 11, 2005
AT 7:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan
Absent: Chris Atkins
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, Acting City Engineer Joe Ferriell, and Law Director Donnette Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES:
On page #2, under Minutes, it stated that Wagner gave an Ayes response for approval of the minutes. Mr. Wagner was not in attendance at that meeting and the minutes will be corrected. Harold Geeting pointed out, on page #19, third paragraph, it states singled roof and that will be corrected to read shingled roof. With the above corrections noted, Ron Coleman made a motion to approve the minutes and Tim Lane seconded it. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Wagner (1)
REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING BOARD:
Jordan: The next item on the agenda will be a housekeeping matter, the reorganization of the Planning Board. We will elect the Chairman and Vice Chairman for this next year. At this time I will call for nominations for the position of Chairman.
Jordan: I have been nominated for Chairman, are there any other nominations? If not, I will close the nominations at this time. We will have the vote on the position of Chairmen, so Becky please call the roll for myself, Tom Jordan, to be appointed to the position of Chairman, for a one year term, ending January 9, 2006.
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Wagner: I second that nomination.
Jordan: Harold Geeting has been nominated, any other nominations for Vice Chair?
If not, I close the nominations. Becky please call the roll for Harold Geeting, to be appointed to the position of Vice Chair, for one-year term, ending January 9, 2006.
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-04-09 – Public Hearing – Zoning Amendment – Ann M. Napier 808 East Avenue:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone lot 1978, located at 808 East Avenue, from ‘R-1A’ (One-Family Residential) to ‘R-1B’ (One-Family Residential). The applicant seeks this rezoning because she desires the smaller setback requirements of ‘R-1B, which will allow her to place a larger home on the lot than is allowed under ‘R-1A.’ This is a Public Hearing and is open and anyone who wishes to address the Board should step forward and state your name for the record.
Napier: I am Ann Napier and the owner of the lot, as Tom said, I just wish to build a little bit bigger house. I have tried the variance route and I don’t seem to be getting very far with that. It was suggested to me that I try for rezoning, with the smaller setbacks. The house is 82 feet and the lot is only a 100 ft. wide and you need 25 feet, 15 and 10, so I need a 7 ft. variance or I need re-zoning. So at this time I am applying for ‘R-1B.’
Jordan: Does anyone else want to address this matter? If not I will close the Public Hearing and turn it over to the Board for discussion. We will do staff review first.
Ferriell: This is a Public Hearing and Planning Board reviews and recommends zoning changes to Council in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan and Chapter 1135. The present zoning district is ‘R-1A’ and the requested zoning is ‘R-1B’ one family residential.
The intent of ‘R-1B’ is to provide space in the City for low-density, single-family residential uses, and to provide for additional uses that serve the residential neighborhood as conditional uses. The minimum lot should be at lease 10,000 sq. ft. for a single-family dwelling and a minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. This tract is located in the “Stoneybrook” Planning Area with a future land use of Suburban Residential. Recommendation should continue to be Suburban Residential. This request must meet condition (A) or (B) through (D) of Chapter 1135.01 for favorable consideration.
Jordan: What is the board’s feeling on this matter?
Coleman: To me this looks like it would be spot zoning if we would change this one to ‘R-1B.’ The applicant made a remark last month that she didn’t want the house turned because she wanted the houses to be like the other houses in the neighborhood. They won’t be if you go to ‘R-1B.’ I think we should stay ‘R-1A.’
Wagner: The lot more than exceeds the requirements for the ‘R-1A’ and the ‘R-1B.’ It seems to me they could probably fit the house, in some fashion, without rezoning. I haven’t seen a floor plan or the plans at all.
Napier: There is no way it could. Do you want to see the floor plan?
Wagner: It is up to Mr. Chairman.
Jordan: Yes, we can look at them.
Napier: It could be turned sideways but I think it would look ridiculous. It is not going to look like the other houses. I don’t understand what you are saying?
Coleman: From the side the setbacks would be different from the other houses.
Napier: I guess it would look a little different because of the back. It would still look like a ranch facing forward on the street. Somebody said something about sitting it sideways.
Coleman: A lot is a lot. You have to put a house on to fit the lot, you can’t make the lot to fit the house.
Napier: I understand what you are saying but to put it sideways would look ridiculous.
Coleman: You would have to revamp the house, change it, how wide it is, change something in the house.
Fisher: Jackie made the comment a day or two ago, that the only thing that would have to be moved is the garage. The only way you can figure the garage and still have the house the way it is would be to put the garage on the back.
Napier: You can’t put it on the back. I am putting a room on the back for my father. He is 90 and is going to be living there. We are trying to put in separate quarters for him. I don’t think there is any way we can put it on the back. Also, we have to be very careful because of the aeration system for the septic. I am afraid if we turn it sideways there won’t be enough room. Gary, from the County said that he wants it on the left-hand side to the back of the lot. He wants the right-hand side left to be used for extra if ever needed. If you would turn it, you are not going to have enough room by putting the room on the back for my father so I think that would be difficult to put the garage anywhere else.
Fisher: I haven’t seen the floor plans.
Napier: I don’t think anybody has seen the floor plans. You are just now seeing them.
Wagner: The new code that we are looking at, you have setback changes. Now for ‘R-1B’ it is 6/15, 6 one side and 15 total. In the new code it is 10/25. We are looking at what might be in the future. Of course we are not suppose to make a decision based on the future. It wouldn’t meet the code in the future, either.
(Everyone is looking at floor plans of the house)
Jordan: Steve, what do you think?
Deffner: I don’t think it meets the requirements and in my opinion it needs to stay the zoning district that it is in.
Getting: I don’t see how it would meet any of these standards of ll35.01, I really can’t see it meeting any of those.
Fisher: The Appeals Board tabled the variance; they have not decided that case yet. They wanted to wait and see what you guys did with the zoning amendment.
Wagner: So, the variance failed at the last meeting, if I read correctly here?
Fisher: It failed this meeting, they gave an unfavorable recommendation to Appeals Board and the Appeals Board has not decided the case yet. It was tabled.
Wagner: So, if the zoning fails this evening the Appeals Board has the opportunity to look at this?
Fisher: They will decide on the Variance.
Wagner: The Appeals Board has final say on the Variance?
Fisher: Yes.
Wagner: If the zoning application fails it goes to City Council?
Fisher: Yes, you either makes a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to City Council.
Wagner: Okay.
Jordan: Like Donnette just stated, this will be a recommendation to Council with a favorable or unfavorable.
Coleman: Mr. Chairman, I move for an unfavorable recommendation for Z-04-09 as it does not meet any of the four requirements of Chapter 1135.01. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)
Nays: Lane (1)
MR-04-05 – Minor Subdivision – Harry & Betty Shurte 532 N. Walnut Street:
Jordan: Mr. Pope are you representing this tonight?
Pope: Mr. Chairman my name is Stephen Pope and I am here tonight on behalf of Randy O’Dell and Harry and Betty Shurte. The Shurtes own parts of Lots 743, 742 and all of Lot 741. Mr. O’Dell’s property backs up to Lot 741 and he would like to purchase the north part of Lot 741 and have it re-described as part of what he currently owns. The Shurte’s are elderly people and that area had fell into a sad state of despair. Last summer Mr. O’Dell went back in there and cleaned it up. He mowed it and cut some of the trees and shrubs and the undergrowth and he really had it looking nice when we were out there in September. He would like to someday add to his existing garage. That is why he would like to have that north part of Lot 741, and amounts to about 5,000 sq. feet. If he were successful at this Board tonight, what we have done, is that when we surveyed this, we surveyed his existing tract of land and prepared a new legal description that would describe not only what he currently owns, but also what he would be purchasing from the Shurtes as well. That would be under one deed, one tract of land that would never be separated again by itself, since it has no road frontage. The Shurtes property would remain unaffected other than we would be taking off the north part of Lot 741, about 7.8 ft. north of their existing barn. If you have any questions I would be happy to try and answer them.
Jordan: Any board members have any questions for Steve at this time?
Geeting: You are talking about the south property line would be straight on east?
Pope: That is correct. Randy O’Dell’s property, his south line would be extended east to the east line of Lot 741.
Wagner: I am looking at this drawing Steve, is it Randy O’Dell senior?
Pope: Yes it is.
Jordan: Which is the brick, correct?
Pope: No. His is the home that is furthers north on Walnut, before you get to the railroad. There is an empty lot there between his house. I thought it was a frame house.
His son lives in the brick house.
Jordan: The only thing, the new division line and that existing barn, is that going to be a problem with a setback?
What is the zoning? It is ‘R-2’ isn’t it?
Wagner: It is a single family dwelling, where the barn is? The set back on one side is 6 ft. and total 15.’
Jordan: They will be okay on that. That is the only thing I saw.
Wagner: I am still a little confused as what structure we are talking about. I went by there today and looked. There is a structure with derby cars parked in back of it, it that the structure we are talking about?
Pope: Yes, that is where Mr. O’Dell lives and he restores old cars. You might have been looking at his garage. Back behind his garage he would like to add on to that someday, on to this property that is in question that the Shurte now own.
Geeting: Mr. Shurte owns all the way to the railroad?
Pope: Yes he does.
Geeting: Are we splitting that property in two?
Pope: Mr. Shurte now owns all of this lot here and he owns the south part of Lot 743 and 742. Mr. Shurte now owns a tract that is ‘L’ shaped. We are just separating off the north part of Lot 741 for Mr. O’Dell to buy. Mr. Shurte will retain the south part of Lot 741.
Jordan: Are there any more questions for Mr. Pope? If not I will turn it over to Joe for staff recommendation.
Ferriell: This application is for a minor subdivision following the regulations in Chapter 1103.03 Plat for Minor Subdivisions. For this lot split to be recoded, the deed must have a statement of approval signed by the Planning Board Chairman as approved by the Planning Board. The minor subdivision must be in conformance with the subdivision regulations, zoning code, and the master plan of the City of Eaton. We are requesting that the deeds read that one cannot be sold without the other and I believe Mr. Pope is aware of this requirement. The Comprehensive Development Plan shows this subdivision is in the “Near West” with future land use of Urban Residential and the recommendations continue to be Urban Residential.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any other questions or comments on this matter?
Wagner: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minor subdivision application MR-04-05 in that it meets the criteria for a minor subdivision. The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Pope: Mr. Chairman, so I can pass upon to my client this will have to be approved by Council as well?
Daily: Not for a minor.
Fisher: Just bring the deed in and I will stamp it.
AB-04-16 – Variance – Gary L. Miller – 228 S. Beech Street:
Jordan: This has been tabled previously and I will ask for a motion to un-table this matter.
Gary Wagner made a motion to un-table the application and it was seconded and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Jordan: At this time we will proceed with the variance request at 228 S. Beech. Joe went down and measured the existing trailer.
Ferriell: Yes, there should be a sketch on the back and it is 804.46 sq. ft. I haven’t seen anything on what they want to put in, but they said the size was 12x50, which is 600 sq. ft. and that is less.
Wagner: Does it go in the same footprint?
Ferriell: It would fit into that footprint.
Wagner: The same footprint?
Ferriell: Yes.
Jordan: The new trailer that you have purchased, what is the dimensions of that?
Miller: 12x50, 600 sq. ft.
Jordan: If I remember right, we did establish that this was lawful pre-existing?
Fisher: Yes.
Jordan: As long as they use the footprint?
Fisher: It is up to you to decide if it is exactly the same or not.
Wagner: Obviously it doesn’t, it is smaller anyway.
Fisher: In pulling case law from our district, there is nothing in the books. The two cases that I found were from different districts, both Kelley’s Island, and the two out of the Eighth District. The 6th District, Kelley’s Island, they had to be the same use, the 8th District said it had to be the exact same size.
Wagner: What District are we in?
Fisher: We are in the 12th.
Wagner: When I look at the applicable standards for Chapter 1133.07 for Variances, look at those six things that are required. You have to meet all of those conditions and when you read down through there, in my opinion, he meets all of those conditions. Special conditions and circumstances existed there for 35-45 years now. Strict application of the zoning code would deprive the applicants their rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Special conditions did not result from the actions of the applicant. Granting this variance request would provide minimum necessary relief, I believe it does and granting the variance it would not be injurious to the neighborhood because it has been existing there for 45 years and we haven’t had any problems there with that situation and we are changing the zoning district. In my opinion I think he meets all of the criteria even though it isn’t legal and lawful.
Fisher: You are going with the 8th district then?
Wagner: Yes.
Jordan: I have to agree with Gary. It does meet all of the applicable standards and my basic concerns from the get-go was if it was a lawful non-conforming use. Now we have some solid measurements I think we can say that.
Deffner: Are there any slide outs on this trailer?
Miller: No.
Fisher: I think that if you decide to go with the 6th district, Kelley’s Island, they said replacing one mobile with another mobile home was a “reasonable substitution” and must be allowed if you go with the 6,th then they don’t need a variance, you can send them on their way. If you go with the 8th District, which said it has to be exact, then they would need a variance on the floor area and the setbacks.
Wagner: I go with the 6th. I think common sense will tell you that you will never find exactly the same size.
Miller: I don’t even think they make them 10x50 any more.
Wagner: I think common sense might rule here in that it is the same use for 45 years. I see no reason why, if they are making an improvement on the property.
Fisher: Do you think it is a reasonable substitution?
Wagner: Yes, I do. So when the motion is made, that is what should be stated?
Fisher: What you basically do, if that is what you want to go with, make a motion that based on the Kelley’s Island case, you think that this is a reasonable substitution, one valid non-conforming use for another, they don’t need a variance, dismiss the application.
Wagner: Can I say, so moved? Tim Lane seconded the motion.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have questions on the motion? Call the roll, please.
Ayes: Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)
Nays: Coleman (1)
Miller: Thank you. We do have some questions, the person who is going to be moving it out for us, he said that we had to have certain permits.
Fisher: You will need to talk to Bob Wehrley. Call in the morning and talk to Bob.
Miller: We will have to get a moving one for both of them, I am pretty sure.
Jordan: That is all the matters that we have listed on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
Jordan: We will talk about the new zoning code first. Donnette you need to explain that we have to form a group?
Fisher: The easiest thing for you to do so we can set up work sessions that are still open to the public, because your meetings are only suppose to be once a month, is create a committee, appoint yourselves to the committee, called the committee of the whole. You need a motion: I move that the Planning Board form a committee of the whole, with all members of Planning Board to review the new zoning code to meet, you decide what night and what time. We had thought maybe every Tuesday. We won’t be able to do it next Tuesday because we will have Council, but that will be okay because we will have time to advertise it. The public is allowed to come to those meetings.
Daily: I have a question. When you say the public is invited to come, can they openly discuss this?
Fisher: Only if the Chairman gives them permission to.
Daily: This will be a little bit different than what we have been used to.
Fisher: It is like any public meeting, a Council meeting, if somebody comes to Council they can’t sit back here in the audience and shout. They will have to address the committee and ask to be recognized.
Jordan: Committee members what are you thoughts on meeting time and dates? Tuesday’s have been tossed out. Do you want to meet every Tuesday?
Wagner: Do realize that the next Council Meeting is next Tuesday?
Jordan: Yes, but we need time for advertising anyway.
Wagner: Tuesday is fine with me.
Deffner: Tuesday is fine.
Jordan: Do you think every Tuesday until we move through this? I think what you might want to do is to read through the code, highlight anything you have and we can present it in sections. We will discuss that section, approve it and move on.
Fisher: What time do you want to meet?
Wagner: 7:30?
Fisher: On a Tuesday? What time did we meet?
Jordan: We met 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Daily: We would like not to go past 9:00 p.m. 7:30 is fine, but that only leaves you 1-½ hours.
Wagner: Does the motion have to state the meeting dates and times?
Fisher: We worked 6:30p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and that worked really well. It will go pretty quickly that way.
Jordan: It is up to the committee 6:30 p.m., 7:00 p.m.?
Wagner: I move that the Planning Board appoint the Board as a “Committee of the Whole” and to schedule meetings that are open to the Public for the purpose of reviewing the UDO, meetings to start at 6:30 p.m. every Tuesday beginning January 25, 2005.
Jordan: Do I have a second to Gary’s motion?
Ron Coleman seconded the above motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Jordan: Is there any other old business?
NEW BUSINESS:
Jordan: I have one thing. We have talked about putting some uniformity into our meetings, along with Council meetings, starting it at 7:00 p.m. That way all the City meetings will start at the same time and it makes it a lot easier for scheduling.
Ron Coleman makes a motion that the Planning Board should move its meetings to 7:00 p.m. and Harold Geeting seconded it. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Any other new business? If not a motion to adjourn. Motion was made by Gary Wagner and seconded by Ron Coleman. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan ()
Nays: None
Meeting adjourned.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Secretary Chairman