The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:00 pm in the Lancaster City Schools Education Service Center, 111 S Broad Street, Lancaster, Ohio. Members present were Tim Oatney, Preston Henderson, Jim Edwards, Lindy Jackson and Jim Bahnsen. Also present was Amy Calvert-Glorioso, Secretary, Stephanie Hall, City Prosecutors Office and Peter Vail, Zoning Official. Mr. Oatney called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. Mr. Oatney advised that anyone wishing to speak would be sworn in before speaking. All those wishing to address the Board were sworn in by Mr. Oatney. Mr. Jackson made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 5, 2016 Board Meeting. Mr. Bahnsen seconded. BZA CASE #515 Mr. Ted Figgins, 347 S Columbus Street, Lancaster, Ohio was present to present Case 515 to the Board. This property is zoned Central Business District. Mr. Figgins, the tenant, wishes to use the property for a small machine shop. A machine shop is not an allowed use within the district. Mr. Figgins stated that he is more like a broker and sub-contracts out most of the work. However, he would have some machines at this location and would be doing some minor repairs. The facility is airconditioned, therefore closed up so noise would be at a minimum. He is the only employee. He has talked with the neighbors and no one has had an issue. Mr. Bahnsen clarified that this is 3 parcels and that the front parcel is a house and the garage (500 sq. ft.) with office is in the back. Mr. Oatney stated that there are other non-conforming businesses in the area. Mr. Edwards inquired what Mr. Figgins hours of operation would be? Mr. Figgins stated that he kept fairly normal hours, never before dawn and rarely after 6 pm. Mr. Vail indicated there was no communication received and clarified that this is a non-conforming use similar to other uses on the property. This would be a substitution instead of a variance. Mr. Bahnsen made a motion to approve the substitution request. Mr. Jackson seconded. Unanimous vote to approve substitution request was granted.
BZA CASE #516 Mr. Dan Stephens, 700 Hoffman Drive, Lancaster, Ohio was present to present Case 516 to the Board. This property is zoned Residential Single-Family High Density. Mr. Stephens currently has 1,224 square feet of accessory structures. He would like to add 806 additional square feet exceeding the amount allowed under the code. Mr. Stephens stated that there was an old building on the property before he built the house. The building was in bad shape and has been torn down. The proposed steel garage replaces this old building. Mr. Edwards requested that the application be modified under Section 1125.02 instead of 1125.03. Mr. Edwards clarified that this is a 60% rule variance and that the proposed building replaces an old building. Mr. Vail indicated that the City did not have any issues with the Variance Request Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Jackson seconded. Unanimous vote to approve variance request was granted. BZA CASE #517 Mr. Richard Shumaker, 1390 Pine Crest Drive NE, Lancaster, Ohio and Pastor Brad Seevers, 1650 Lynn Drive, Lancaster representing Fifth Avenue Church of Christ were present to present Case 517 to the Board. The Fifth Avenue Church of Christ has submitted a Special Exception for the vacant 12-acre tract of land owned by Ron Hawk (Parcel No 0534007750). This property is zoned Residential Single-Family High Density. The Church would like to purchase this property and build a new facility. Mr. Shumaker stated that the Church wants to purchase the 12-acre property and build a new church. Mr. Jackson asked if they had any definite plans to build? Mr. Shumaker did not know what the future plans were. Mr. Bahnsen noted that there was a picture submitted with the application of the potential church, but no plans showing parking, landscaping, etc. and how much of a buffer between parking and residential. Mr. Shumaker did not have any information to share regarding the specifics. Mr. Shumaker turned the floor over to Pastor Seevers. Mr. Edwards cited that the Code requires a Site Plan must be submitted before the Board and that the plans submitted do not qualify as a Site Plan. Pastor Seevers stated that the Church is very early in this process. The Congregation is aware of the plans but have not voted. The Church wants to ensure that they would be able to build before purchasing the 12-acre tract before going to the congregation for the go ahead. They would need to raise the money to build the Church. A realistic time-frame would be within 3-5 years. The Church has talked with a firm
but a whole-site development has not been done. He does not foresee any pavement being in any close proximity to any of the adjacent properties. He can envision the Church but no definite plans have been made. Mr. Edwards stated that the Code is clear and that the Board cannot approve unless there is a site plan. Mr. Edwards stated the point of a site plan is so the Board knows exactly where the church will be, how far from the neighbors on the east, how far from the neighbors on the west, whether there is access from Midway, from Hawk Street or from Malibu. If this is nailed down, and the Board approves the application, if you decide to move the building 50 feet or deviate from these plans, you would have to come before the Board for approval. Ms. Hall stated that she concurs. The application is incomplete. Mr. Jackson stated that he understands the Churches position and perhaps plans showing more specific details would suffice, not necessarily a fully engineered plan. Ms. Hall stated that the Board would need more that what we have received. Mr. Edwards concurred that the Board would need a footprint of the building, access, parking, etc. before they could vote. Mr. Oatney suggested that this request be tabled until the site plans are available. Mr. Seevers requested specifics from the Board as to what is needed to proceed. Mr. Vail suggested that they get in contact with the Engineering Department for this information. Mr. Edwards stated that in his opinion, unless there are objections from the neighbors, he can t see himself voting against the Church. This is only his position; he does not speak for the other Board Members. It is not a matter of no, but that the Board is not able to vote at this time Mr. Jackson questioned that if this application would be approved, whether the City s position would be to improve the sub-street Malibu as a street? Mr. Vail agreed that making Malibu the entry point made the most sense, but that this would up to the City Engineer. Mr. Bahnsen questioned if there were residents in Parcels 54, 55, 56 and 57? Mr. Seevers stated that no one resides in one of these homes. It was his understanding that they needed to talk with all property owners who own land adjacent to the proposed site and that is what they attempted to do. There were no comments received by the Secretary. Mr. Vail indicated that the City did not have any issues but there were two people who were not notified due to an issue with scanning. He would request that the Board table this application until these people have a chance to respond. Mr. Oatney opened the floor to the audience to share their opinions. Mr. David McCoy, 2356 Hawk Street, Lancaster, Ohio stated that this is a quiet, low traffic neighborhood. He is not opposed to the Church, but is concerned about altering the neighborhood. Ms. Amanda King, 1425 Beverly Hills, Lancaster, Ohio stated that she is not opposed to the Church, but is concerned about the traffic on Beverly Hills and Hawk.
Mr. Farrell Jackson, 2363 Hawk Street, Lancaster is not opposed to the Church but does not want any more activity on Hawk Street. It is a community with many retired people who walk for their daily exercise. There are no sidewalks and most of the neighborhood walks in the street. He would like to see the Church use Sheridan Drive. Ms. Teri Fosnaugh, 2505 Sheridan Drive, Lancaster, Ohio is not opposed to the Church. They came here to see plans so they would know what is coming. They are concerned about the traffic. Ms. Deborah Turner, 2356 Hawk Street, Lancaster, Ohio agreed with what had been said by others and would not add to this but wanted to address the fact that some people who are effected were not notified. Mr. Edwards stated that the statute sets forth who gets notified. Mr. Vail also stated that public notice is published in the Lancaster Eagle Gazette. It was suggested to the Church to gather names and address of all interested parties and to notify them and keep them abreast of developments. Mr. Jackson introduced Mr. Tom Stoughton, City Councilman and stated that anyone who has concerns should contact him directly. Mr. Edwards made a motion to table this request until sufficient information is available. Mr. Henderson seconded. Unanimous vote to table this request to a future date was granted. BZA CASE #518 Mr. John Moody, 1117 W Mulberry Street, Lancaster, Ohio was present to present Case 518 to the Board. Mr. Moody has submitted a request for Special Exception to store contractor equipment and tools associated with his excavation business. The Code allows this use as long as adequate fencing and screening devises are installed. Mr. Bahnsen clarified that there are 2 buildings on 5 parcels and that the fence would surround the whole property. Mr. Edwards inquired what type of equipment and if it would be taller than the minimum required 8 fence? Mr. Moody stated equipment would include a self-loader, scraper, trailer, semi-truck, dump truck, etc. and that yes, some of this equipment would be taller than 8 but would be set back on the property and not overly visible from the street. Mr. Edwards stated that the Code was not clear if a chain link fence with screening is adequate and what the minimum height requirement would be. Mr. Bahnsen felt that 8 high would be adequate. Mr. Moody inquired if he would need to submit drawings because of the height? Mr. Vail stated that a permit and drawings would need to be submitted for an 8 fence before construction.
Mr. Edwards inquired whether the business hours were normal daytime hours. Mr. Moody stated that most of their work is in the Columbus area so they would be leaving early morning (6 am) and may not return until evening hours (6 8 pm). Mr. Moody stated he would prefer a wood privacy fence and that was his intent. The gate would face Mulberry Street and would need to be 16. Some issues may arise with an adequate gate. Mr. Vail indicated that the City did not have any issues with the Variance Request. Mr. Jackson made a motion to approve the variance request and allow an 8 foot wooden privacy fence in conformity with current code and that it would be for all 5 parcels. Mr. Edwards seconded. Unanimous vote to approve variance request was granted. BZA CASE #519 Ms. Kellie Ailes, Community Action Program Commission of the Lancaster Fairfield County Area was present to present Case 519 to the Board. Ms. Ailes has submitted a Use Variance Request for the property known as The Pearl House, Ltd., 218 W. Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Ohio. Community Action is proposing to use some of the existing space within the facility to provide an Early Head Start program for residents. The proposed daycare is not an allowed use within this type of facility. Ms. Ailes stated that they would like to provide Early Head Start Services to the children of the residents of Pearl House. This would be one classroom day per week (6 hours) for children 3 years of age and younger. This would allow the parents to receive drug counseling while their children are being cared for. Child care is currently being provided in this room by the parents. Mr. Henderson commended Ms. Ailes for the work Community Action is doing. Mr. Vail indicated that the City did not have any issues with the Use Variance Request Mr. Edwards made a motion to approve the accessory use request. Mr. Henderson seconded. Unanimous vote to approve use variance request was granted. Mr. Vail requested that the Board give some zoning clarification regarding the proposed application for the Fun Bus. The application states that the property will be used as corporate offices and as a bus terminal to load and unload passengers. The code does not recognize a bus terminal or bus station within any zone.
Mr. Vail asked the Board to review this use within a Commercial General district and to determine if it would be allowed under a permitted use, accessory use, or by special exception. Mr. Edward suggested that this is an issue for legal counsel. Discussion was had between the Board members and Counsel and the code was reviewed. It was determined that the Code did not address a bus terminal or bus station. Discussion was had between the Board Members and Council to determine if RIDETHEBUS (The Fun Bus) would be a bus terminal. Mr. Bahnsen stated that this would not be a regular scheduled daily stop, but simply people parking in the lot to board the Fun Bus vehicles. They would be parking at this location as opposed to parking in a public parking lot as they are now. Mr. Vail shared an email received today by the applicant clarifying that the primary use for the facility was misstated as a terminal and would be 98% corporate office. The Board concurred that the primary function of the facility would be for their corporate office and that no use variance request would be required. Mr. Jackson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bahnsen seconded. Meeting was adjourned Respectfully submitted, Amy Calvert-Glorioso, Secretary