WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
September 24, 2007
The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on September 24, 2007 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Board present were Mr. Horine, Mrs. Mulligan, Mrs. Fischer, Mrs. Fish, and Mrs. Gastineau (as alternate).
Call to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Horine explained the hearing format and voting procedure.
The Oath was administered by Mr. Horine.
Case A-1509 – Speed-e Car Wash, 10469 Yankee Street
Request is for a variance to allow for a permanent wall sign to be located on a proposed car wash located in an Industrial 1 (I-1) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Seth Dorman, Skilken Properties, 4270 Morse Road, Columbus. Mr. Dorman stated applicant is seeking approval for one (1) wall sign of 50 square feet. The previous variance was reviewed. He requested that this building be a separate building and venture and had asked to allow a wall sign. This request was denied, which has caused them difficulties. Speedway enjoyed customer identification and this venture would not allow signage to provide identity and advertising. Also, the lot cannot be split off due to the size of the lot.
Mr. Dorman reviewed a packet submitted showing I-1 buildings with freestanding signs and wall signs.
Mr. Horine – Could you affirm that you have been sworn in?
Mr. Dorman – Yes.
Mr. Horine – Please explain the business relationship with Speedway.
Mr. Dorman – There will be some advertising from Speedway and revenue sharing.
Mrs. Fish – Seems like an add-on business and the situation does not change.
Mr. Dorman – This venture needs recognition to survive.
Mrs. Fish – Does it need to?
Mr. Dorman – Yes.
Mr. Ehrhart – Reviewed the original variance.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included: None.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:
Mrs. Fish – Noted that this is a highly valuable piece of land and feels that a variance should not be permitted. Mrs. Fish also questioned the possibility if adding the Speed-e to the existing sign.
There was discussion among the board members on how the decision was made on the original case.
Mr. Horine – Feels there should be some signage for the new building; however, he is unsure what level it should be.
Mrs. Mulligan – Indicated the building is designed by architects and trusts the architects’ judgment. Does not have a problem with this variance.
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Mulligan moved in Case A-1509 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to allow for a permanent wall sign to be located on a proposed car wash located in an Industrial 1 (I-1) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, no; Mrs. Fish, no.
Mr. Horine – Stated that he sees the car wash as a separate business from Speedway and they need to be able to identify themselves.
Case A-1509 approved.
Case A-1510 – Happy Hubs, Inc., 8311 Yankee Road
Request is for a variance to allow for concrete masonry units to be substituted for brick/stone for a proposed car wash located in a Business 2 (B-2) zoning district.
This case was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
Case A-1510 withdrawn.
Case A-1511 – Bradley & Leanne Stone, 701 Palace Green Parkway
Request is for a variance to allow for the height of a fence located within the front yard to be increased from the required four feet (4’) to six feet (6’) located in a Special use (SU) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Joe Willhoite, 225 Linden Drive. Mr. Willhoite indicated this case to be unusual because it is the applicants’ back yard. He indicated the applicant was shocked to hear he could not have the fence without the variance. Mr. Willhoite noted the piece of property is not an unusual lot with the road turning away. The building materials to be used will be 6’ red cedar.
Mr. Horine – Asked if this fence will help with privacy?
Mr. Willhoite – Yes, it will help screen off the pool area.
Mr. Horine - Will the fence consist of vertical boards?
Mr. Willhoite – Yes.
Mrs. Fish – Noted the area appears to be a backyard.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included: None.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1511 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to allow for the height of a fence located within the front yard to be increased from the required four feet (4’) to six feet (6’) located in a Special Use (SU) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes.
Case A-1511 approved.
Case A-1512 – Jim Weprin Trust, Northeast corner of Social Row Road and Dayton-Lebanon Pike
Request is for a variance in the landscape requirements to allow for the relief of required street trees along the Social Row Road frontage located in an Office Residential (OR-4) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart, Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Tony Beckert, 8534 Yankee Street. Mr. Beckert noted the sanitary easement is so wide due to the depth of the line, which is how the width is determined. There were about six (6) trees that were eliminated. They have consulted with the Washington Township Visual Improvement Program Committee (VIP) and the submitted plan is the same plan that was reviewed by the VIP minus the 6 trees located in the front.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included: None.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Fish moved in Case A-1512 to approve applicant’s request for a variance in the landscape requirements to allow for the relief of required street trees along the Social Row Road frontage located in an Office Residential (OR-4) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes.
Case A-1512 approved.
Case A-1513 – Murtuza Ghouse, 390 Mapletrace Trail
Request is for a variance to allow for the height of a fence located within the front yard to be increased from the required four feet (4’) to six feet (6’) located in a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Murtuza Ghouse, 390 Mapletrace Trail. Mr. Ghouse stated he bought the house about a year ago and has had to remove approximately 12 pine trees due to the trees being diseased. The fence would replace the screening that was lost due to removal of the trees. He stated the fence would be vinyl. He also stated the hill in the area is approximately 4’ high.
Mrs. Gastineau - Questioned the color of the vinyl.
Mr. Ghouse – The vinyl will be Desert Tan.
Mr. Horine – Stated he was concerned with the ridge and why it would be necessary for a higher fence.
Mr. Ghouse – Presented samples.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:
Andrew Kleinhenz, 7557 Yankee Street – Feels the township regulations for privacy fences are out of line and they lessen property values.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1513 to deny applicant’s request for a variance to allow for the height of a fence located within the front yard to be increased from the required four feet (4’) to six feet (6’) located in a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes.
Mrs. Fischer – Suggested the applicant looking at landscaping as an alternative.
Mr. Horine – Feels the 4’ height of the hill in addition to the distance up from the sidewalk is enough necessary for privacy.
Case A-1513 denied.
Case A-1514 – Harry David Brown/Brad Powell, 1042Westridge Road
Request is for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from the required fifteen (15’) to approximately eight feet (8’) to allow for an addition located in a Residential (R-1) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Brad Powell, 111 Centerwood Lane. Mr. Powell explained that Mr. Brown is deceased and they now have the house on the market. Many prospective buyers have looked at the house; however, the one complaint most had is that there is only one (1) bathroom. The variance requested would be for an additional bathroom. At this time, they do have a buyer interested in the house if the variance is granted.
Mr. Horine – If the variance requested is approved, you are not going to build the addition?
Mr. Powell – That is correct.
Mr. Horine – Questioned the type of building materials that would be used?
Mr. Powell – The addition would be brick similar to the house.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:
Sue Lienesch, 192 Laurel Oak Court – Questioned if the neighbors were notified of the request.
Mr. Ehrhart – Yes.
Mrs. Lienesch – If the variance is approved and the home is sold, will the variance go with the property?
Mr. Ehrhart – Yes.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1514 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback from the required fifteen feet (15’) to approximately eight feet (8’) to allow for an addition located in a Residential (R-1) zoning district, subject to: 1) the building materials to be used in the construction of the addition must be similar to the building materials already existing.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Fish.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes.
Case A-1514 approved with modification.
Case A-1515 – Southview Hospital/Lackner Signs, 1997 Miamisburg-Centerville Road
Request is for variances in the sign requirements to allow for an increase in overall size from the required maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet to ninety-six (96) square feet and to increase the overall height from the required maximum of six feet (6’) to ten feet (10’) to allow for the placement of a new freestanding sign located in a Planned Development Office 3 (PD-O3) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by David Williams, Lackner Signs, 6067 Schumacher Park Drive, West Chester. Mr. Williams indicated the size of the sign will be 8’ x 12’ with the only illumination being the cabinet. He reviewed the revised location of the sign at the setback on the south side of the access drive. They need to be able to identify the emergency entrance and the entrance into the campus. He indicated it will be a very professional looking sign. The cabinet will be similar to the one located on SR725, only smaller.
Mrs. Gastineau – What will be the height of the sign?
Mr. Williams – It will be ten feet (10’) from the grade. The sign will be perpendicular to the road.
There was discussion on the change in the location and size of the sign.
Jim Porter of Southview Hospital, 1997 Miamisburg-Centerville Road - Addressed how the access drives connect the buildings on the campus. The sign does not identify any of the other buildings, just the campus and emergency room. The sign is seventy-five feet (75’) off the roadway. It is over two thousand feet (2,000’) from the other entrance.
There was discussion on the type of sign as an identification and reason for a campus sign.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:
Mr. Horine – Read a letter from Mr. Polk dated September 20, 2007.
Tom Bartol, 2020 Fox Run – Questioned what is sign would be allowable with the requested variance. Feels that the access would be better from the SR725 entrance. Also questioned the number of signs the applicant is permitted.
Denise Aleva, 7424 Eagle Creek Drive – Questioned the reason for the oversized sign and asked how big the letters are? The size of the letters should be based on visual activity. A 20/40 visual activity for a 12’ letter is 343’ away. Ms. Aleva also researched the Federal Highway Standard which is 1” per 40’ of distance.
Andy Kleinhenz, 7557 Yankee Street – Feels that if the variance is approved this will encourage other large signs in the area. When the process began 2 years ago, it was strictly for doctors’ offices. Now it is an emergency room entrance. This project has become too big and the neighbors feel they have been violated.
Ron Thie, 7705 Eagle Creek Drive – Stated he is surprised at the location of the sign. If you are traveling south on Yankee Street, the entrance drive is before you see the sign. There was discussion that it could be an entrance for ambulances traveling south on Yankee Street. With the location of the entrance you will not see the sign very well.
Betty Kleinhenz, 7557 Yankee Street – Would like to see the homeowners’ opinions taken into consideration and prevent the road from becoming a thoroughfare.
Tom Bartol, 2020 Fox Run – Would like to discourage the use of the Yankee Street entrance and focus on the SR725 entrance.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:
Mrs. Fish – Appreciates the comments about the lettering from the audience.
Mr. Horine – Has concerns about the large sign on Yankee Street; however, feels there were better arguments for the sign located on the SR725 entrance.
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1515 to deny applicant’s request for a variance in the sign requirements to allow for an increase in overall size from the required maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet to ninety-six (96) square feet located in a Planned Development Office 3 (PD-O3) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes.
Case A-1515 denied in reference to the increase in overall sign size.
Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1515 to deny applicant’s request for a variance in the sign requirements to increase the overall height from the required maximum of six feet (6’) to ten feet (10’) to allow for the placement of a new freestanding sign located in a Planned Development Office 3 (PD-O3) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mr. Gastineau, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes.
Case A-1515 denied in reference to the overall height of the sign.
Case A-1516 – Washington Development, LLC., 9601 Deer Face Court
Request is for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from the required fifty feet (50’) to forty-eight point two feet (48.2’) along the Heartland Trace frontage and to forty-five point seven feet (45.7’) to allow for the construction of a single family residence located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.
Mrs. Gastineau – Indicated there was an acquaintance in the audience for this case and felt there was a conflict of interest. Mrs. Gastineau asked to be excused from hearing this case.
Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Brent Fraley, 6372 Trenton-Franklin Road, Middletown. Mr. Fraley indicated that this lot just meets the minimum requirements for a lot in an R-4 zoning district. The client originally had moved the encroachment to the rear. He encouraged the client to ask for front yard variances. This house will be 2,400 to 2,500 square feet on the first floor. This size barely fits on this size lot. Mr. Fraley also indicated the home is single story with a full basement.
Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:
Ralph Schwartz, 9610 Deerface Court – Wants to maintain the green space and there are protective covenants for that purpose. Felt this request to be a like fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Mark Satzger, 631 Heartland Trace – Reviewed the house sizes in the area and submitted the covenants.
Mrs. Fish – Questioned the number of two-story houses in the area.
Mr. Ehrhart – Stated the homes are mostly one-story homes and only a few two-story homes.
Paul Hegwood, 641 Heartland Trace – Noted that the character of the subdivision is very consistent. This house does not meet that character. There are not many corner lots developed in The Estates of Paragon.
Robert Young, 621 Heartland Trace – They designed a lot that would not fit into the neighborhood.
Mr. Fraley – Indicated they are not building up this lot for a walkout basement. There is not a walkout basement.
Public hearing closed.
Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:
Hearing closed.
Motion – Mrs. Mulligan moved in Case A-1516 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from the required fifty feet (50’) to forty-eight point two feet (48.2’) along the Heartland Trace frontage and to forty-five point seven feet (45.7’) to allow for the construction of a single family residence located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.
VOTE - Mr. Horine, no; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, no; Mrs. Gastineau, abstained; Mrs. Fish, no.
Case A-1516 denied.
Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning office.
Dan Horine, Chairman
Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals