WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES

December 10, 2007

The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on December 10, 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 Mr. Schwartz.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Horine explained the hearing format and voting procedure.

The Oath was administered by Mr. Horine.

MOTION – Mrs. Fischer moved the minutes of November 26, 2007 be approved as submitted.

Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fisch, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes.

Case A-1522 - Jeff Perry, 1111 Rustic Creek

Request is for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from fifteen feet (15’) to twelve feet (12’) to allow for an addition located in a Residential 4 (R-4) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart , Zoning and GIS Manager, presented the case.

Applicant represented by Jeff Perry, 1111 Rustic Creek. Mr. Perry addressed the Board and stated he was asking for the variance due to having a large truck. He cannot put the truck into the garage and also there is a need for more storage space. His intention is to house the truck and a vintage Mustang in the new addition. Mr. Perry indicated the building materials would match the existing materials used.

Mr. Horine – Asked about the length of the truck.

Mr. Perry – Stated the truck is approximately 19’ and the garage is 20’ deep.

Mr. Horine – Stated the proposed addition is 32’. How did you come up with the size of 32’?

Mr. Perry – There is a need for more storage space.

Mrs. Fish – Is there an existing entrance from the existing area to the new area?

Mr. Perry – There currently is a door that will connect the areas.

Mrs. Fish – Are there any drainage problems?

Mr. Perry – Yes. However, they will install drain tile out to the front of the property. We will also be willing to work with the neighbor to drain the rear yard areas.

Mrs. Mulligan – Indicated the existing garage is 400 square feet and the new addition is 576 square feet for a total of 976 square feet. Felt that this is a lot of garage.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:

Ryan Miller, 1121 Rustic Creek – His main concern is the drainage. There is a pool of water toward the back of the property.

Mrs. Fish – Asked Mr. Miller if he was satisfied with the applicant’s solution to the drainage?

Mr. Miller – Yes. Just wants to make sure the water drains forward.

Mr. Horine – Asked Mr. Miller if he was concerned with the wall of the addition being that much closer to his property.

Mr. Miller – His only concern is with the view down to Garnet Drive.

Mr. Perry – Noted how the neighbor’s house drains and reviewed how the neighbor’s house is laid out. The house has the lower level on the opposite side of the property.

Mr. Schwartz – Asked how far the tile will come out.

Mr. Perry – It will come out approximately 15’ to 20’.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.

Hearing closed.

Motion - Mrs. Fischer moved to approve applicant’s request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from fifteen feet (15’) to eleven feet (11’) instead of the requested twelve feet (12’) to allow for an addition located in a Residential 4 (R-4) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fish.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, no; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes.

Case A-1522 approved with modification.

Case A-1523 – St. George’s Church, 5520 Far Hills Avenue

Request is for conditional use approval to utilize the property for various church uses located in a Residential 3 (R-3) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.

Applicant represented by David Montgomery, Attorney, 2700 Kettering Tower, Dayton. Mr. Montgomery addressed the Board and stated they do not intend to consolidate the lots pending approval of the variance. Also, they will ask for a variance for the new entry. The applicant wants to state on the record that they fully intend to comply with the requirements.

Mr. Montgomery stated that on the 5520 Far Hills Avenue site there will be sidewalk improvements on the site. They will connect to the sidewalk proposed by the State of Ohio and Washington Township. The parking is proposed to be re-striped, which will gain approximately 15 parking spaces. The applicant fully intends to comply with the rules.

Mr. Montgomery continued that the property at 41 Manor Lane has been owned by the church two separate times. This property was acquired by the church in 2004. He stated that the applicant has been sensitive to the residential character of the neighborhood. He also stated that everything is located along the west property line.

Drawings were submitted to the Board and Mr. Montgomery reviewed the distances from the site plan items to the east property line. The church has received new play equipment that does not fit into the existing playground area. He also stated the detention area does not hold water. From a line of site perspective, the impact will be minimal. The site plan shows the existing trees and the parking area was placed far away from other properties. They tried to provide parking for the overall site and the memory garden.

The applicant submitted a master plan to portray what could be done in the long run. The church is not asking for the office uses. They are asking for a rectory and a home office related to religious uses. There could be a bible studies, church dinners, etc. They are asking for the drive in front of the Manor Lane house. The church is also asking for church related activities to be allowed on the site.

Mrs. Fischer – Have you talked about an office use for the house on Manor Lane? Could this become a Starbucks or some type of food pantry?

Mr. Montgomery – What the church would like to use this for is a rectory with the availability to use the site for other church uses.

Mrs. Fish – What is the house currently used for?

Mr. Montgomery – It is single family residential.

Mrs. Fischer – Would applicant be agreeable to putting specifications on the house?

Mr. Mo ntgomery – As far as on the use of the property, yes. They would expect that.

Reverend Carol Hull, 5570 Viewpoint Drive – Stated they were supposed and excited with the acquisition of the property. One of the reasons is because of how beautiful the property is. They would like to have vacation bible school, church picnics, youth programs, etc. on the property. Earlier in the year they held a vacation bible school and they had to have it in the grassy area along Far Hills Avenue. Reverend Hull reviewed the outreach programs of the church. She stated they make this building available to the community.

Mr. Montgomery – Stated the plan speaks for itself. The applicant has made every attempt to minimize the impact.

Mrs. Mulligan – When they purchased the property, were you aware that you would need to come before the Board?

Mr. Montgomery – Yes.

Mrs. Mulligan – Why didn’t you come before the Board first?

Mr. Montgomery – There was a unique opportunity to acquire the property and they did not want to pass up the opportunity.

Mr. Horine – Has there been discussion on traffic flow?

Mr. Montgomery – Yes, there have been discussions with Washington Township regarding the Far Hills entrance. They have also had discussions about trying to get with other property owners for sharing the parking.

Mrs. Fish – Has the church discussed widening Manor Lane?

Mr. Montgomery – Stated he has not been involved in those discussions.

Mrs. Fischer – Stated they need to lock down certain things could the RULUPIA come into play.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:

Phil Callahan, 101 N. 1 st Street, Miamisburg – Stated he is the attorney representing the Manor Lane, Rahn Road and Sunnyridge Lane residents. Stated he is the law director for the Cities of Monroe and Miamisburg. RULUPIA does not apply to this case due to not imposing a substantial burden on the church. He stated the property is located in an R-3 zoning district and there are several conditional uses being requested. Mr. Callahan reviewed what is stated in the code.

Mr. Callahan - Reviewed the conditional use criteria. He stated this area is already built out. The church is already zoned R-3 and that this is a residential area. There is a line that separates the residential uses from the commercial uses. The code requires the access onto a 70’ right of way and the parcel needs to be a minimum of 5 acres. They are concerned with the property located at 41 Manor Lane being used for anything other than residential uses. The Manor Lane property acts as the entry way into the residential neighborhood. They feel that granting anything other than residential would set a dangerous precedent and open the door for more intense uses. Mr. Callahan stated that when the church purchased the property in 2004, the church removed a large part of the natural barrier along the west property line. The property owners have already experienced enhanced noise, light, etc. He stated that Manor Lane is a private drive and is barely wide enough for vehicles to pass one another. The area in front of the church on Manor Lane is deteriorating faster than other areas of Manor Lane. Mr. Callahan emphasized that this area is a private secluded area. The more people that come into the area, the greater the impact and potential for crime in the area. He indicated there will be an increase on public services due to a higher intensity of use. Mr. Callahan stated they have no objections to the church using 41 Manor Lane for any of the permitted uses of the R-3 zoning district.

Mr. Horine – Stated he is troubled by the non-conforming issues. He indicated that if the properties were joined together it would be over 5 acres.

William J. Smith, 161 Sunnyridge Lane – Has been asked to speak on behalf of the residents of the area. He reviewed documents submitted to the Board.

Janet Blank, 65 Manor Lane – Stated that every home on Manor Lane is represented here. They are united and passionate about opposing the use at 41 Manor Lane. She stated that these homes are on private drives with park-like settings. These houses have a unique setting hard to find in this area. This area has attracted many long-term residents. Ms. Blank reviewed the length of ownership of the neighborhood. The density of Manor Lane is very low and vehicle traffic is very low. Ms. Blank respectfully asked that the Board deny this application.

Barbara Early, 70 E. Rahn – Addressed concerns with the north playground area. This application will cause more trees to be removed.

Tom Delaney, 145 Manor Lane – Stated he is the second generation of his family to live on Manor Lane. The removal of some of the vegetation has increased noise and light from Far Hills Avenue and the church. He stated there have also been traffic issues from the church with the vehicles entering and exiting on Manor Lane.

Robert Blank, 65 Manor Lane – Stated that this is a very important issue to all of the residents. Felt there is a better way. The church proposes to add parking along Manor Lane. He indicated there were 23 vacant spots in the lower lot as of 10:45 a.m. yesterday. Felt there are some other things they could do. Suggested the applicant talk to the property owners of the office buildings to the north and inquire about sharing the parking with the church. He stated that if the church needs more office space, there is space available for rent to the north. If the church does not meet the needs of the daycare, then the daycare can move away. If the church outgrows the space, they can move. There is a direct economic cost to all of the residences, himself the most. Mr. Blank asked an appraiser of what kind of change this may have on his property. The appraiser indicated 15% to 50%.

Kiah Webster, 9322 Shawhan Drive – Stated she grew up at St. George’s Church and was confirmed there as well as married there. She moved away for a time but when they moved back to Dayton they moved back because of St. George’s Church. Her children will be the ones playing on the playground. She wants it to be safe and enclosed.

Jean Silverstein, 105 Manor Lane – Stated she lives in the last house on the street. She can fully appreciate what the previous speaker just stated. That is why she likes living on Manor Lane.

Mr. Montgomery – Has previously indicated that the uses would be similar to the R-3 uses. Would be willing to add trees if required. The church did nothing wrong in removing the trees. There was testimony as to the value of the homes. He would submit that the rectory would have a negligible or no impact on value.

Mrs. Fischer – Do you know what the membership of the church is?

Reverend Hull – The attendance is 300-400 people.

Mrs. Fischer – What about future growth?

Reverend Hull – Cannot predict future growth.

Mrs. Fischer – Is the daycare a business that the church runs?

Patrick MacKenzie, 6537 Hollowview Trail – The daycare is a non-profit program. The only thing the church receives is rent. Mr. MacKenzie reviewed the improvements needed for the play area.

Mrs. Fischer – Was the church established in 1956?

Mr. Montgomery – Yes, at this location.

Mrs. Mulligan – Asked if there were two deeds for the property?

Mr. Montgomery – There are two (2) deeds.

Darrell Bickley, 165 Manor Lane – Lives all the way at the end of the lane. Dayton Power & Light trimmed trees on his property this year and they did not clear like they did between the church and the rest of the neighbors. The upkeep of the home at 41 Manor Lane has not been handled well. Mr. Bickley personally called the township this year because of high grass and the upkeep. They had a “lane” meeting in November and a representative from the church was there who stated the church had no plans to develop the 41 Manor Lane property.

Reverend Hull – Feels there is a need to clarify. There are no plans to build on the 41 Manor Lane. There are no immediate plans for further development other than proposed. There were trees removed that were discarded and honeysuckle removed along the property.

Mrs. Fischer – Stated she is truly disappointed that there has been a lack of communication between the church and the neighbors. It makes the Board’s decision so much more difficult with so many issues unresolved.

Diane Gentner, 8114 Beechcreek Drive – Has been a resident for 14 years and a member of St. George’s for 14 years. There has never been a goal of being detrimental to the neighborhood. The church just wants to provide its mission to the community. When the owner of 41 Manor Lane approached the church about buying the property, the church gave him the asking price. There was no negotiation. The church gave him what he was asking. The long-term plans for the property are not set in stone. The church wants to move forward with the current plans. Ms. Gentner feels that the church is being characterized as villains.

Mr. Horine – State the Board has heard both sides of the issue. The church is focused on church activities.

Public hearing closed.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:

Mr. Horine – Stated the church believes that the church serves the community but is short sighted in its impact on surround neighbors.

Mrs. Fischer – The church as been around since the 1950’s. The residents moved in knowing that the church was there. The issue is the conditional use. Mrs. Fischer has a problem with the ingress and egress situation. The other thing she would like to see is that specific conditions be placed on the property.

Mr. Schwartz – The biggest problem he has is the ingress and egress as well and does not want to impact the entry to Manor Lane.

Mrs. Mulligan – When the church purchased the property, Mrs. Mulligan assumed they had a contract. They should have had the approval before acquiring the property.

Mrs. Fish – Would like to see screening to be put back in place after the electric lines are buried.

Mrs. Fischer – There are pieces of the application that are acceptable but other parts are not.

Mr. Montgomery – There is some confusion on what the Board is considering whether it is an approval or a denial of the application as a whole. The applicant has already stipulated to points on the record. They have agreed to more screening and to consolidate the lots. The access onto Manor Lane, as far as it is proposed, would need to be addressed. Not sure that another plan submitted would be different than what is currently proposed.

Mrs. Fischer – There would have to be conditions on the use of the house at 41 Manor Lane, the access on Manor Lane would be left as is, and serious landscaping additions.

Mrs. Mulligan – Would want the house left as is.

Mrs. Fischer – Suggested it could be used as a rectory and allow bible studies and things like that.

Mr. Schwartz – Indicated that if you allowed bible studies and things like that it puts additional traffic onto Manor Lane.

Mrs. Fischer – Noted as Mr. Montgomery pointed out, any homeowner could have bible studies in their home.

Mr. Horine – In addition to the screening that the township would require the access onto Manor Lane needs to be addressed. There also needs to be a separate entrance for the church. A private drive is not suitable for a church entrance.

Mr. Ehrhart – From a staff perspective, there is a concern when things on a final plan start getting changed conceptually. It leaves a lot open for interpretation.

Mr. Callahan – Stated it seems the easiest thing to do is deny the application and let the church start over. The residents are not opposed to any of the church uses on the existing church site; only additions to the 41 Manor Lane site. Any of these additional uses talked about for the 41 Manor Lane site impact the existing neighbors.

Hearing closed.

Motion - Mr. Schwartz moved in Case A-1523 to deny applicant’s request for conditional use approval to utilize the property for various church uses located in a Residential 3 (R-3) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Mulligan.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Mulligan, yes; Mrs. Fischer, no; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes.

Case A-1523 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

BZA\Minutes\December 10, 2007