LIBERTY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of December 3, 2013 The Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals held a meeting and Public Hearing on December 3, 2013, in the Liberty Township Administrative Building, 2095 Reynoldsburg-Baltimore Road, Baltimore, Ohio 43105. The meeting and public hearing were called to order at 7:30pm by Chairman Bill McNeer with the following members present: Chairman Bill McNeer, Jack Schafer, Walter Bader, Karl Kumler, Barbara Sellers, and Secretary Lori Anthony. Adam Leith, Alternate and Zoning Inspector Billy Phillips were absent. All joined in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. There was one correction to the minutes of the September 3, 2013 meeting. On Page 3, line 5, the second word should read replied. Karl Kumler motioned for the minutes to be approved as corrected. Walter Bader seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected. Guests present were Greg Pifer, James, Anthony, Paul Collins, Jim Cotugno, Margaret Cotugno, and Delores Pifer. Chairman McNeer introduced the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. He then reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals By-Laws, which were made available to everyone. He explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted, the rules for speaking and that each speaker would be sworn in before he/she spoke. He verified that there was no conflict of interest from each of the Board of Zoning Appeals members. Chairman McNeer asked the Zoning Secretary, Lori, to be sworn in as she has information to provide. Lori was sworn in then Chairman McNeer reviewed all the hearing and notice requirements. The hearing was scheduled within 60 days as the application was received November 13, 2013 and the hearing scheduled December 3, 2013. The notice ran in the Lancaster Eagle Gazette newspaper 10 days prior as it ran on November 20, 2013. The letters to the parties of interest were mailed on November 18, 2013 which met the 10 days prior to the hearing requirement. Lori Anthony confirmed to Chairman McNeer that to the best of her knowledge the property was zoned rural residential. Chairman McNeer asked if there had been any correspondence or communication received. Lori Anthony replied that on November 21, 2013 she was contacted by Gregory Pifer to review the information in the file. On December 3, 2013, she was contacted by neighbor Stephen Severance (614-738-9881) opposing the variance as he didn t feel it would help property values and will hurt the neighbor with the bees. She was also contacted on December 3, 2013 by neighbor Chris Kienle (614-332-6505) opposing the variance as everyone else has to follow the 175 foot frontage rule and didn t understand why they should get an exception and he said the neighbors were expecting one house to be built on that property not two. Chairman McNeer commented that these are not evidence in the sense that it wasn t just opposed so it s almost hearsay but we still want it recorded in the minutes. Chairman McNeer noted that on the application we received, there are three or four pages that he wanted to make sure were clarified. The application refers to Section 7.203 and that should be Section 7.2B. These pages were from the old Zoning Resolution that has since been revised. In comparing the two, the only differences noted were 1) The old Resolution states a Public Hearing was to be held in 30 days, the new Resolution states 60 days we meet both the 30 and 60 days and 2) Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals 7.211 in the old one, 7.2J in the new one, we have to make a decision with 30 days. It did say 60 days. It doesn t change the hearing requirements either way. Page 1 of 8
Chairman McNeer stated Application 07-BZA-2013 is requesting approval of 162.79 feet and 162.78 feet of frontage for two lots of less than five (5) acres and the variance would be against Zoning Resolution Section 9.2G2A. He then called the applicant or representative of the applicant forward to be sworn in and make a statement. Chairman McNeer asked him to state his name. Paul Collins replied Paul Collins. Chairman McNeer asked if he sworn and affirmed that the testimony he was providing was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Paul Collins replied I do. Chairman McNeer thanked Mr. Collins and asked him to state his name again and his address. Paul Collins replied it is Paul Collins and I live at 106 North Company Street, Baltimore. Chairman McNeer advised him to go ahead. Paul Collins stated the variance that is 175 feet I think we ve already said that. 162.79 for one lot, the north lot and 162.78 for the south lot. I did go through the application and fill out the reasons why I tried to justify this happening. Some factors I think are taken care of. We have already had preapproval from the Health Department. They came out and looked at the lot to see if it could handle, sustain two lots and that was okay ed by the Health Department. We have also had preapproval from Map room and the engineers, County Engineers looked at it after a professional survey done to consider the two lots. The proposed lots will use an existing easement. There will be no extra driveways, bridges that will be added. So it will not extra access to the Poplar Creek to minimize the effects to the surrounding areas and traffic going through that area. Like I said before, Poplar Creek will not require a bridge. It will use the shared road and the already established easement to access the property, both lots. A side note, we looked at it and the family that s considering to live next to us if it s approved, we don t want the property values to go down either. We don t think that will happen because we would put two very nice houses on there. We believe the natural look of the creek and the trees would block any view from the road and people thinking it looked cluttered back there. The trees would not be affected. The creek would not be affected. As I said before no bridges would come through. The proposed lots also still to exceed the two (2) acres minimum it would be about 2.607 is what the surveyors figured out 2.607 for each lot exceeding the two (2) acre lot by at least.6. And we believe the lots were intended to have you know originally one house. We looked at that and it s not for profit. We are not selling the lots to make money. We are not building the house to sell it to someone else. We are actually, if it goes through, it is actually a very close friend of ours. We have family relationships and they would build a nice home on that lot as well. The last point I guess I would make is the two lots would provide you know approximately, I don t know the exact figure, but $8,000 income to the township and county via property taxes. Chairman McNeer replied on this access road you are talking about, do you have a diagram to show what you are talking about? Paul Collins replied yea. He asked if he was talking about the easement. Chairman McNeer said well the easement and all. How this whole thing would come together. Paul Collins provided showed the Board a diagram and replied here s the existing homeowner, the two lots, the easement is here and this is the access road that goes back to all the properties cause there was intended to have houses back in here as well. So this is Poplar Creek, your shared road, your easement to access the property is already established. Consider this as one lot, here s the easement. Here s the road. Chairman McNeer asked who owns that property? Paul Collins replied this right here is Greg and Delores right here they own this strip of land here. It does have the easement here and then this this road goes back to I think it is Jeff Cotugno back all the way back here. So it s shared really right now with three owners, ourselves, Greg and Delores and then Greg Cotugno back in here. It goes back in here I think it s like 15 acres. Chairman McNeer asked why this tax parcel is separate from this tax parcel? Paul Collins replied that I don t know. I think the line is a separate, I think the line goes through here that splits it and allows that to be south. Page 2 of 8
Chairman McNeer interrupted advising the man approaching he may look but not talk. He then said but when you bought this property at the same time you bought Paul Collins interrupted saying yea this whole section comes together. Here s the bold outline here is the current lot. This is the proposed split right down the middle. Chairman McNeer asked if this acreage here access this Paul Collins interrupted saying yea they all share this road and then their road comes through here. Up through this way they use this existing easement and then the property will use this piece of the easement right here. So this is the easement right here in this area right here. Chairman McNeer commented one side note there was a question about all the neighbors and we found out Mr. Pifer found out. So Greg, Mr. Pifer was Paul Collins responded he s here. Chairman McNeer asked he was sent a notice? Paul Collins said yes he s here. Chairman McNeer replied he covered both sides. How about across the street? Paul Collins replied my application I did Tussing. Lori Anthony replied yes. Chairman McNeer commented so everybody had been notified. Karl Kumler commented now where the driveway I see that going around. Where are you coming when the driveway from your easement. Paul Collins stated the, right here this is Poplar Creek. This road s already established. Karl Kumler replied yes. Paul Collins further stated we would come right in here where it is established. It is not a proposed, this is already existing. Karl Kumler asked that this comes into the one lot but then Paul Collins interrupted stating we would go down, have it split down the middle. Access would be here and then open up to the two lots. Chairman McNeer asked right now what does your deed say? The deed you have currently what does it say? Paul Collins replied as for addressing what part? Chairman McNeer asked does your deed say you own all is there one deed or a deed for this and a deed for this? Paul Collins responded I believe it would be considered one this whole, be considered one. Chairman McNeer stated he didn t understand why the tax parcel was different for this. Paul Collins stated yea it is where the line draws and for some reason I don t know if it follows the road, inside the road which I know as you can see the road bends here. These homes here, I think when you come back further I think it would be Southeast Licking like Watkins Memorial school district I believe is over here and then line goes right through them so that s why I think they were split up. This is under 021 I think it is and this 020 school districts. Chairman McNeer asked do you have any idea how much road frontage Mr. Pifer has here? Paul Collins replied I don t. I think it s yea I don t know how much. Jack Schafer asked so when you re asking for the variance on the one hundred sixty Paul Collins interjected stating it s 162.79. Jack Schafer continued is that the variance on the easement road or Poplar Creek? Paul Collins replied it is, yea that would be out towards the right. Jack Schafer stated that this here is showing 103 feet. Paul Collins says yea there added, you have to add in there s a couple, you have to add in these pieces here. Karl Kumler asked where s the frontage we are talking about? It s on this road right? That s 162 on each lot? Paul Collins replied 162.79 for one lot and yea. Jack Schafer interjected so what you are going to do is move this line here over here? Paul Collins said no this is the proposed line and it takes 136, it adds in this here, that s that piece you know right in there and then this piece adds in 103 and then it adds in 59 that s where you get your, it s almost a direct. Jack Schaefer said but you are actually going to access the property from the existing roadway easement? Page 3 of 8
Paul Collins replied it was intended originally for that lot anyways but now we come across that lot and go down the middle of the lots to share the. Jack Schafer interrupted asking are you going to create another easement to the other lot? Paul Collins replied I would believe you have to have, I don t know easements and things that well but I would assume you have to have one that allows you to access the road here for both properties. Jack Schafer asked would you put that on this end of the property? Paul Collins replied yes it would just come straight in. Chairman McNeer stated on the application he has two copies of the survey for the south half of lot 7. Paul Collins asked if he could look at it. Chairman McNeer stated the original application is there (pointing to Secretary Anthony s copy), I think that s where, that s just a copy of what you have. Paul Collins stated I have more can I give you those? Chairman McNeer replied sure. Paul Collins stated these are all the same just different copies. That s north. There s a description of the easement as well. Chairman McNeer stated there wasn t time to go through all this now but advised Secretary Anthony to make sure it is part of the official record. Walter Bader was trying to locate the duplicate information in his application. Chairman McNeer assisted him and provided the Board with copies of the north survey. He then asked the Board if there were any additional questions. Barbara? Barbara Sellers replied no. Chairman McNeer asked Jack? Jack Schafer shook his head no. Walter Bader asked you building on one of these lots yourself? Paul Collins replied yes. Walter Bader replied and your friend s going to build Paul Collins interjected yes. Walter Bader asked he isn t going to pay you anything for it? He s just a good friend. Paul Collins replied no. he is going to pay us for it. We are going to split my original purchase price split it down the middle. Chairman McNeer asked if there were any more questions. Walter Bader replied no. Chairman McNeer stated unless there was any more people who want to speak Paul Collins interjected stating can I make one more comment. Chairman McNeer stated sure. Paul Collins stated he did address in D3 about the, I would assume this is concern about other people coming forward saying hey we want that same variance, we want that same variance. I think of folks that would come forward are gonna have to ask, gonna need a road, they are gonna need a bridge, they are gonna need something. We are not asking for that. We re just saying, I know that some people won t like splitting the lot and having two houses out there but I am not asking, I think the circumstances would be different with having wood frontage and not needing an additional road for the split lot. Thank you. Chairman McNeer asked if there were any proponents or for this variance that want to speak? No one indicated such. He then asked if there were any opponents opposed to it to please step forward. A gentleman came forward. Chairman McNeer asked him to state his name. Gentleman replied my name is Gregory Pifer. Chairman McNeer asked Gregory Pifer do you swear or affirm that the testimony you providing is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Gregory Pifer replied I do. Chairman McNeer asked him to state his name and address. Gregory Pifer replied my name is Gregory Pifer. I live at 11621 Poplar Creek Road. First of all I would like to state that my wife and I have nothing against Mr. and Mrs. Collins and we would welcome his family to the area. Page 4 of 8
What we have a problem with is subdividing this property that has been requested. We own 23 acres that surround Mr. Collins property on three sides. We own eight acres to the south. We own 15 acres to the west which has been planted in native grasses and then we own along the lane that Mr. Collins would use for an easement as well as our driveway. So we surround Mr. Collins on three sides. We moved to Baltimore in 2006 seeking the rural life that I had as a boy. We have since become somewhat naturalists and when we moved here we recognized that somebody could move to that property. We recognized someone owned it, someone could move there and we don t have a problem with one house on that property. What I am here is opposing the zoning variance before this committee. My wife and I sincerely request that this variance be denied to protect not only us but Poplar Creek and Liberty Township as a whole and I would like to make a few more statements if I could please and this is in reference to D3 of the request. My goal is not pick apart the request. My goal is to add some other things to what has already been stated in there. If I turn your attention to D3, subparagraph A, there is a statement that says the property can realize the potential of its intended use residential housing. I am not arguing that the property intended use is for residential. Mr. Cotugno that I bought the property from can attest that the intended use while residential has always been for one house not two houses. If you look at line three, it states that the property owner believes that this lot is different from others seeking a variance to the frontage length. The natural setting, the tree line will conceal the proposed homes. I would state that in fact that was probably the case when the variance was requested back in say October. If you drive down Poplar Creek now and for the next five months all of that property is open because the leaves are gone from the trees so we are not hiding anything from Poplar Creek. If you drive, if you drive south, my south is in view. My barn is in view and these two homes will likewise be in view. I would now direct you to subparagraph C where it says the granting of the requested variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood and detrimental to the public. In fact, I would argue that this is injurious to us. We came here to Liberty Township to get away from clusters of homes which we had had in previous areas that we have lived. It further states in fact the proposed lots and homes will add to the value of the neighborhood. I believe it will for the people wanting more suburban feel but I would argue that it does not add value for us who want rural setting. I just have a couple more statements if you would indulge me. He further states that the two lots would provide approximately $8,000 worth of income to the township and county via property taxes. I don t argue this for two homes but the difference we are talking about is for $4,000. The county and schools will receive $4,000 with one home and it will receive $8,000 for two homes. The owner believes that the approval of this variance is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonable practicable the formation as a part of this code of a general regulations for such condition or situation. As Mr. McNeer knows, because he lives on Heimberger next to Poplar Creek, there is considerable farm land remaining on Poplar Creek. The farm immediately to the south of us has considerable woodlands, it has Poplar Creek, it has hills. If ever developed, that developer could fall back on this and say you granted a variance here, I would like the same variance for this property here. Additionally, the northwest corner of Stemen Road and Poplar Creek is vacant and very similar to this property with the woodlands, the creek as well as two other corners of Stemen and Poplar Creek also are vacant farmland and going down towards Heimberger is also all farmland. The first sentence of the second paragraph this request for variance is based on the small variance of the required 175 feet versus the requested 163 feet. This is a small variance. It s not a small variance. I would argue that seven percent reduction is a large variance and something to be considered. If I had a seven percent reduction in my pay, I ll guarantee you that would hurt. Seven percent is seven percent. Let me just summarize my remarks if you would please. While the request seems small, it is large for us. Not wanting high density homes on Poplar Creek Road. There are no other homes or lots on Poplar Creek that vary from zoning laws. I went through each and every property on Poplar Creek. I looked at the acreage. I looked at the frontage. I have a spreadsheet of that. None of those go below the zoning requirements. The response that in the D3 or in the application mentions twice that the homes will be concealed and hidden. In fact, they will only be hidden during the summer. If the homes truly add value, why does the owner make a large point of twice saying the homes will be conceal3ed? They aren t going to be concealed from my wife, from me, from Mr. Cotugno when he builds behind our 15 acres and shares that same lane. The lot was never intended to become a high density two lots. We question the need for two lots at this location and let me just finally say that the decision of the BZA will affect my wife and me for the rest of our Page 5 of 8
lives. We re retired. We re not leaving Liberty Township. We are not leaving Poplar Creek Road. The National Association of Homebuilders data shows that on the average, half of all Americans leave their homes and move within the first six years. Put two homes there, chances are good one of those two families will leave within the next six years and it s the Pifer s and the Cotugno s and the Tussing s and the McNulty s and the Severance s, we are the ones faced with two homes where we did not want that. Thank you for your attention. Chairman McNeer asked the if there were questions. He then asked you own the property south of the proposed lot? You own this property here? You own this property here right? South of them. Gregory Pifer commented I am turning around. Yes. Chairman McNeer stated that s north. Gregory Pifer stated yes. I own all this. This is my eight acres. This is my 15 acres and I own all of this down here. So I own this side, this side, my driveway comes out here and I own along side. Chairman McNeer interrupted asking where do you enter your property. Gregory Pifer replied I enter my property up this lane and then my driveway goes back through here just to the west of Mr. Collins property. Chairman McNeer asked is that the same driveway that this lot here uses? Gregory Pifer responded yes. Chairman McNeer asked how much frontage do you have here on this on Poplar Creek Road on this eight acres here? Gregory Pifer asked may I look? I have that information. 405. Chairman McNeer asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Pifer. He then thanked Mr. Pifer and asked if there were any other opponents. Another gentleman stood up and he replied yes sir and the gentleman proceeded forward. He asked him to please state his name. Gentleman replied Jim Cotugno. Chiarman McNeer asked do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are providing is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Jim Cotugno replied I do. Chairman McNeer asked him to state his name and address. Jim Cotugno replied Jim Cotugno and I live at 4750 Blacklick Eastern Road Northwest. Chairman McNeer asked help me out there. Is that that s in Liberty Township correct? Jim Cotugno stated correct. It is about a mile north of this on St. Rt. 204. Chairman McNeer responded ok so you are in Liberty Township. Jim Cotugno responded a few points. I have been in front of this board for a variance for one foot and got denied. Zoning was put in place for road frontage. All cases are different. If you grant him a variance you have to grant everybody a variance. We own 20 acres in the back that we share the driveway. I was the developer here and I just want you to know that and if you give him a variance you gotta give us one. Chairman McNeer asked does your 20 acres have another road access to it. Jim Cotugno replied no it does not. Chairman McNeer replied this is your only access. Jim Cotugno replied yes. Chairman McNeer asked when did you buy your property. Jim Cotugno responded I bought all this property six years ago. This is our property right here. Walter Bader asked did you say you owned this five acres at one time? Jim Cotugno stated I split it, yes. I was the developer yes I split it. Chairman McNeer responded you say you split it give me some Jim Cotugno stated well I bought the Stam Track. We bought 48 acres. This is a township divide line which has different school districts that s why you have different parcels. Chairman McNeer asked so when you sold this property, you sold it is a five acres, 5.42 lot. Jim Cotugno replied correct. I set up the frontages. If you notice how these frontages come down and angle. Each frontage down here we set up we set up so they could only have a lot. As they come down, I put all the extra frontage on Greg s lot. He could actually split his lot but with the creek and the flood plain and the Page 6 of 8
unusable space up front, I couldn t see it ever happening so that s why I gave him the extra frontage because I didn t intend any of these lots we split to split again. Chairman McNeer asked what year was that you split them? That you did this. Jim Cotugno stated six years ago then he said uh in 06 so I probably split them in 05 and sold them in 06. Chairman McNeer asked so our zoning resolution didn t change this frontage when we did the overhaul in 09 did it? We still had the 175 feet back then? Jim Cotugno said it was still the 175 feet for two to five acres; 300 feet for five to fifteen acres and 60 feet for anything over fifteen acres. Cause I wanted to get a variance to do two lots over fifteen with 30 feet of frontage. They are sharing the long flagpole. What would that hurt? You would still, you would still have one driveway, two big lots, fifteen acres. You wouldn t have to add anything. The driveway is there. The road frontage feet is 60 feet, I want 30 and 30 no one would ever notice it the house would sit way in the woods but you guys wouldn t grant it because zoning is put in place to protect everybody in the township and that s why we have the strict rules with the frontages. Chairman McNeer asked if there were any questions. With no additional questions he then thanked Mr. Cotugno. He asked if there were any other opponents of the application and received no additional response. He then advised Mr. Collins he had the closing argument. Paul Collins stated I think it was stated a couple times that I think it s accurate, not all variance have to be granted that s why there is a committee that s why people put cases together to go before the committee and let the committee decide what s best for the township and the community. I will say that Mr. Pifer is correct on the $8,000 to $4,000 we will build a house there. That s our plans whether it s one house or our friends build another house so you have a difference of $4,000. The other reason I think Mr. Cotugno was splitting up all these lots, these lots were all split up, they could have all been sold individually for people to build houses on, large enough for houses, Mr. Pifer has bought that land so he chooses not to develop it that s fine, no homes will be on there so the natural setting that he desires is going to be there. He has the fifteen acres that he owns to look out and he is going to rural view instead of one house here as I am proposing it will be two houses. Again I guess it, you know stress the point that restrictions are in there for a reason but so are committees and variance to grant them when it makes sense. The last thing I would like to say is that the trees definitely they don t hide and conceal the lots completely but you are talking about a creek, trees on one side, plants on one side and on the other side trees so it s a lot of country. It definitely is not concealed completely but in the months where there are leaves, you are not going to see the one house unless you look back the shared road. Again I just, we are hoping you grant the variance and I appreciate your time. Chairman McNeer said before you go does anyone have anybody got anymore questions? Jack Schafer said I got one. When you plan to build on this two lots or one lot, you going to face your house towards Poplar Creek or to the north? Paul Collins replied to the north. Jack Schafer said so if it was divided into two lots, both homes would face the north. Paul Collins replied yes they would. Chairman McNeer asked if there were any other questions. With no more questions, he thanked Mr. Collins. Paul Collins replied thank you for your time. Karl Kumler made a motion to close the public hearing and go into deliberations at 8:10pm and Walter Bader seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion. The Board then moved into deliberations and Chairman McNeer reminded the audience they could not interrupt with any questions or comments. The Board deliberated matters. Walter Bader made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. The motion was seconded by Karl Kumler. Roll call vote: Bader no, Kumler no, Sellers no, Schafer no, McNeer no. Jack Schafer made a motion to close deliberations at 8:24pm and Karl Kumler seconded the motion. Page 7 of 8
Additional business was discussed. The Board agreed to continue publishing all notices in the Lancaster Eagle Gazette. The 2014 BZA Organizational Meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 14, 2013 at 6pm in the Liberty Township Administrative Building. Chairman McNeer commented that he will present proposed changes to the BZA By-Laws for 2014 at the 2014 Organization Meeting. With no further business, Walter Bader made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Karl Kumler seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:34pm. Chairman, Bill McNeer Secretary, Lori L. Anthony Page 8 of 8