WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES

February 25, 2008

The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on February 25, 2008 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Fire Station Headquarters. 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. Fish moved the minutes of January 28, 2008 be approved with modifications.

Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

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

Case A-1531 Van Con Inc., 9240 Yankee Street

Request is for conditional use approval to construct and operate a day care facility located in an Agricultural (A) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, informed the Board that applicant has requested this case to be tabled.

Case A-1531 tabled.

CASE A- 1526 – Joseph Brown, 8493 Maltbie Road

Request is for approval of the elevations and building materials for an accessory structure to be located in the front yard (based on corner lot) located in a Residential (R-2) zoning district. This case was approved at the January 28, 2008 meeting.

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

Applicant represented by Joseph Brown, 8493 Maltbie Road. Mr. Brown addressed the Board and noted the project total will be four times the amount of the original cost of the building.

Mrs. Mulligan – What will be the cost amount?

Mr. Brown – It will cost approximately $16,000 for this building and about four times that amount for stone.

Mr. Horine – Stated that he had hoped the materials would dictate the size and the look of the garage.

Mrs. Mulligan – Asked for the size of the structure.

Mr. Brown – 24’ x 50’.

Mr. Horine – Was not aware of any other similar structure in the area made of metal.

Mr. Brown – Indicated that the metal would probably be better than the siding that is on the other garages in the area.

The Board reviewed pictures presented by Mr. Brown.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included: None.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.

Hearing closed.

MOTION – Mrs. Fish moved in Case A-1526 to approve applicant’s request for approval of the elevations and building materials for an accessory structure to be located in the front yard (based on corner lot) located in a Residential (R-2) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mr. Horine.

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

Mr. Horine – Feels that there are building materials that are more appropriate.

Case A-1526 denied.

CASE A-1525 – Thomas Roesle, 72 Tranquil Trail

Request is for a variance to reduce the side yard setback for an accessory structure in the front half of the rear yard, from the required fifteen feet (15’) to three and one-half feet (3.5’) located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart, Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case. Mr. Ehrhart informed the Board that this case was tabled at the January meeting and is still an active case.

Applicant represented by Thomas Roesle, 72 Tranquil Trail. Mr. Roesle stated that the roots of the tree extend out from the sides. If he goes over 15’ he would not be able to keep the boat. He would not be able to back the trailer into the structure with 3 ½ feet.

Mrs. Fish – How long have you had the boat?

Mr. Roesle – 3 years.

Mrs. Fish – Where did you keep the boat before?

Mr. Roesle – It was stored in Xenia.

Mrs. Fish – When did you realize that the building was too close to the property line?

Mr. Roesle – He knew when the gentleman from the Township came and told him to stop building.

Mr. Horine – Can you describe further what the structure will look like?

Mr. Roesle – Stated that there are two (2) more side panels to go on the sides.

Mr. Horine – Asked if the sides are going to be open?

Mr. Roesle – Only partially.

Mrs. Mulligan – When you move the structure, it will be five feet (5’) in from the property line?

Mr. Roesle – It will be 3.5’ away.

Mr. Horine – Have you talked to any companies about the tree? Do you think you may lose the tree?

Mr. Roesle – Stated that he does not have to cut out a lot of the roots.

Mrs. Fish – What type of tree is it?

Mr. Roesle – Sugar Maple.

Mrs. Mulligan – Asked there was a permit for the structure?

Mr. Ehrhart – No.

Mr. Roesle – Stated he did not know that he needed a permit.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:

Robert Dipert, 86 Tranquil Trail – Stated that his first question has already been answered. The setback limit is 15’ and back away from the house the setback limit is 5’. Not only is it too close to the house, but it is still too close to the property line. Could it be moved further back so it could be 5’ from the property line or moved to the center so it is behind his house?

Darlene Anthony, 9680 S. Union Road – Stated she is speaking on behalf of her parents.

Mrs. Fish – Which is your parents’ house?

Ms. Anthony – They live right next door. Her parents are Don and Agnes Hocker, 82 Tranquil Trail. Ms. Anthony stated that Mr. Roesle asked a few years ago to bring the driveway over and her father told him no. She indicated that Mr. Roesle has a history of encroaching over the property line. She also stated that Mr. Roesle could put it on the other side of the tree. They had the property surveyed 5 years age when they put the driveway in.

Mrs. Fish – The property was surveyed at that time?

Donald Hocker, 82 Tranquil Trail – When you go the second half of the property, it is only 5’ away from the line. If the structure is place there, they would not need to look at it.

Mr. Roesle – Stated if he tries to put it in the back half of the property, he would still have to deal with 2 large trees and if located in the rear half of the house he could not make the turn with the boat.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.

Hearing closed.

MOTION – Mrs. Fisher moved in Case A-1525 to deny applicant’s request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback for an accessory structure in the front half of the rear yard, from the required fifteen feet (15’) to three and one-half feet (3.5’) located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

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

Case A-1525 denied.

Case A-1528 - Robert Dawson, 66 Patty Lou Avenue

Request is for a variance to decrease the side yard setback for an accessory structure from the required fifteen feet (15’) to approximately ten feet (10’) located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

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

Applicant represented by Robert Dawson, 66 Patty Lou Avenue. Mr. Dawson stated that he needed to get the variance approved before any plans could be done.

Mr. Horine – Asked about the size of the camper?

Mr. Dawson – Approximately 32’.

Mr. Horine – Is the size of the camper the driving force for the length of the structure?

Mr. Dawson – Yes. The camper requires the structure to be 28’ x 38’.

Mr. Horine – Have you given any thought to the size of the lot in comparison to the size of the structure. The structure seems to dwarf the lot.

Mrs. Mulligan – Asked if the camper is stored there all the time?

Mr. Dawson – The camper was purchased just before Christmas.

Mrs. Mulligan – What is store in the garage?

Mr. Dawson – A car and a motorcycle.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:

Tom Hurd, 6710 Germantown Pike – Is the owner of the property at 71 Patty Lou where he had built a garage-sized structure within the code requirements. The structure proposed by Mr. Dawson exceeds the size of what is allowed by the code, as well as the height that is allowed by the code. Mr. Hurd feels that this will be an eyesore to the neighborhood.

Pat McDowell, 67 Bizzell – Concerned with the height and dominance of the structure. Feels that the side yard setback is not that big of a deal but the height is an issue.

Joy Cioffredi, 70 Lammers Avenue – The character of the neighborhood is all ranch homes. Most of the neighborhood homes do not have detached garages. Feels that the size is the biggest issue. Also feels it would be a detriment to the neighborhood.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.

Hearing closed.

MOTION – Mrs. Mulligan moved in Case A-1528 to deny applicant’s request for a variance to decrease the side yard setback for an accessory structure from the required fifteen feet (15’) to approximately ten feet (10’) located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.

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

Case A-1528 denied.

Case A-1529 – Scott Williams, 6014 Southampton Drive

Request is for a variance to increase the height of fencing in the front yard from the required four feet (4’) to six feet (6’) located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

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

Applicant represented by Scott Williams, 6014 Southampton Drive. Mr. Williams addressed the Board by informing them that the fence blew down a few days before Christmas and needs to be replaced. The family room is the area where the window is, which is an addition. He would like to screen it from W. Whipp Road.

Mr. Horine – Asked what type of fence would be used?

Mr. Williams – It will be the exact same fence as is in place, which is a shadow box design.

Mr. Williams presented pictures of the property.

Mrs. Fish – Are there any other sections of the fence that need to be replaced?

Mr. Williams – No. The rest of the fence is in good condition.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included: None.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:

Mr. Horine – Noted that this same circumstance could be repeated.

Hearing closed.

Motion – Mrs. Fish moved in Case A-1529 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to increase the height of fencing in the front yard from the required four feet (4’) to six feet (6’) located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

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

Case A-1529 approved.

Case A-1530 – The River Church, 10227 Dayton-Lebanon Pike

Request is for a variance to increase the size of a freestanding sign from the required sixteen (16) square feet per face to thirty-two (32) square feet per face located in a Special use (SU) zoning district.

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

Applicant represented by Dale Bolen, 9550 Paragon Road. Mr. Bolen addressed the Board and informed them that the sign will be illuminated and will increase the property value.

Mr. Horine – Asked if illuminating will be inside or outside?

Mr. Bolen – It will have inside illumination.

Mrs. Mulligan – Asked if people are having a difficult time locating the church?

Mr. Bolen – They have just purchased the property and do not take occupancy until April.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included: None.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included: None.

Hearing closed.

Motion - Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1530 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to increase the size of a freestanding sign from the required sixteen (16) square feet per face to thirty-two (32) square feet per face located in a Special Use (SU) 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-1530 approved.

Case A-1532 – The Gathering, 8885/8911/8921 Yankee Street

Request is for conditional use approval to construct and operate a church located in an Agricultural (A) zoning district.

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

Applicant represented by Don Highlander, 56 Milford Drive, Hudson, Ohio. Mr. Highlander addressed the Board and informed them that they currently congregate at the Recreation Center. They have been looking for available land diligently. Mr. Highlander stated that the three properties on Yankee Street give the church a good start with room to grow.

Jeff Van Atta, Van Atta Engineering, 570 Congress Park Drive – Is the engineer on the property. He stated that the property to the north was a good addition. It allowed alignment with Yankee Woods. They are proposing to improve Yankee Street within Montgomery County standards. Sewer and water is available to them. Also, there is a flood plain to the rear of the property, but that area is where the parking will be located and will be raised up out of the 100-year flood plain.

Mr. Highlander – Explained the proposed building materials, adding that these materials were used on the Morning Star Baptist Church on Nutt Road.

Phillip Miller, 1001 Windsor Crossing – Partnered up with Mr. Highlander on Morning Star Church. On the exterior of the building, concrete is infused with hydrogen bubbles making it lighter.

Mr. Horine – Stated that the Morning Star Church has more of a look of permanence.

Mr. Highlander – Indicated he was open to suggestions.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:

Peter Zierolf, 1267 Yankee Woods Drive – Would like to see the building pushed back further, as well as screening along the parking lot area. Mr. Zierolf has a concern with the travel along Yankee Street.

Mr. Horine – Agreed with Mr. Zierolf in regard to the road and the problems on Yankee Street.

Mrs. Fisher – Asked if Yankee Street is a county maintained road.

Mr. Ehrhart – Yes.

Doug Schlosser, 8815 Yankee Street – Indicated his house is the northernmost property that is for sale. He stated that his concern is with water runoff. If the area is raised up, it could create more flooding. He stated that when Turnberry Village was constructed, he was told the water flowed south. It flows north. The traffic is also a big issue during rush hour.

Tim Heaton, 1694 Waterstone Boulevard – Stated that aggress traffic is horrific along Yankee Street, which may hasten the anticipated widening. Feels this is a good use of the property.

Mr. Van Atta – Stated they are going to widen the road on the church’s side of Yankee Street and will be required to adhere to Montgomery County standards for runoff control. The building is set back 100 feet and the parking is 20 feet from the future right of way. They will also adhere to the township’s landscaping requirements. Mr. Van Atta explained the flood plain regulations.

Dan Shows, Associate Pastor of The Gathering, 10501 Success Lane - Has experience with drainage issues and they intend to be good neighbors. The hours of operation will be off rush hour time.

Mr. Horine – Are there any plans for a day care?

Mr. Shows - No.

Mr. Horine – Are there any plans for a gymnasium?

Mr. Shows - No, not at this time.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:

Mr. Horine – Spoke about parking and needing more for the church.

Mrs. Fischer – Questioned the Fire Department comments.

Hearing closed.

Motion - Mr. Schwartz moved in Case A-1532 to approve applicant’s request for conditional use approval to construct and operate a church located in an Agricultural (A) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.

AMENDED MOTION – Mr. Horine moved to amend the motion to approve applicant’s request for conditional use approval to construct and operate a church located in an Agricultural (A) zoning district subject to: 1) the site plan presented; and 2) the building materials submitted during presentation with considering alternate accent materials.

Amended Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

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

Case A-1532 approved with modifications.

Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning office.

Dan Horine, Chairman

Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals