CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Paul Sellman Dave Mail Diane Werner Elizabeth Howard Steve Balazs Arrived at 7:09 p.m. Heather Phile, Development Planner Eric Fink, Assistant Law Director I. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Howard called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE The pledge was recited. III. ROLL CALL Dave Mail, Steve Balazs, Diane Werner, Paul Sellman and Ms. Howard were present. IV. PREAMBLE Variance requests will be considered in the order that they appear on the agenda. Each variance applicant or their representative will first explain the request to the Board and will respond to Board questions. The Board will then hear statements from persons supporting the variance, followed by statements from those persons opposing the variance. All persons making statements will do so under oath, and shall state their name and address for the record. Their testimony shall be directed to the Board and not to the audience. If a member of the audience wishes to ask a question of one of the speakers, he or she shall first be recognized by the Chair of the Board and direct the question to the Chair. The Chair will then direct the question to the appropriate witness. This will allow the meeting to be conducted in an orderly manner. If written statements have been provided to the Board, they will be included in the record of this meeting. At the Chair s discretion, they may be read into the record during the meeting. After all testimony has been taken, the Board will discuss and review the request. Generally, the will decide to approve or deny each
Page 2 requested variance at the meeting that it hears the testimony. Some decisions may be continued for further review. Mr. Fink read the General standards from Section 1115.09(b)(3) that the follows in the granting of any variance. In every instance where the Board grants or recommends a variance, there must be a finding by the Board that: (1) The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; (2) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses within the same zoning district, and; (3) The granting of such variances will not be of substantial detriment to the public interest or to adjacent property owners or improvements in such districts in which the variance is sought and will not materially impair the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Howard read the following statement that summarizes the Board s authority: The operates according to the provisions of the Kent City Zoning Code which provides for the establishment of the Board. Members of the Board, Kent citizens serving without pay, visit sites and hear evidence both pro and con at public meetings before carefully and conscientiously rendering a decision. After a decision has been made, the case is closed for the Board, as there is no provision in the code for the Board to reopen a case. If the petitioner disagrees with the findings of the Board, there are only two proper procedures. One is to resubmit a revision of the request that is more compatible with the code and the second is to institute legal procedures in the Common Pleas Court. V. Administration of the Oath Mr. Fink instructed members of the audience wishing to be heard on any of the cases presented at this meeting to rise and raise their right hand. Mr. Fink administered the oath, Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Please say I do. The participants responded, I do. VI. Motion: Mr. Mail moved to take the agenda out of order to approve the meeting minutes. Ms. Werner seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 4 0.
Page 3 Motion: Mr. Sellman moved to approve the amended Meeting Minutes from August 20, 2012. Mr. Mail seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 3 0. One Abstention. Mr. Balazs arrived at the meeting during the discussion of the August 2012 minutes. Motion: Mr. Mail moved to approve the Meeting Minutes from September 17, 2012. Mr. Sellman seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 4 0. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. BZ12-022 The Light/Larry and Mary Noel 156 North Water Street Section: 1171.01(1) Request: The applicant is requesting a 100-foot variance from the 100 foot minimum structure and activity setback, as outlined in Section 1171.01(1) to allow a church to be located in the existing building at 156 North Water Street. Ms. Howard asked the applicants to present their variance request. Larry and Mary Noel, 297 Westberry Circle, Tallmadge, Ohio, stated that they were church planners in Kent. They handed out information brochures to the Board that explained the services and functions of the church. Mr. Noel stated they were interested in targeting kids on campus and providing spiritual alternatives to them from some of the traditional churches. He said they felt this was an ideal location because of the access to public transportation, as well as the fact that this is the entertainment center for the City of Kent. He said they were asking for the variance so that they could provide this service to the students and members of the community. He said their church is involved in the community and they provide a meal one Sunday each month through Kent Social Service to the citizens of Kent. He said they
Page 4 want to be an organization that gives back to the community. They participated in the Kent Heritage Festival where they gave out backpacks to students that included a directory and map that located businesses in the City. He said it is a church organization that will give students a place to connect with the community. Ms. Howard asked if there were other locations. Mr. Noel replied initially they rented different buildings in the City and then this building became available. They started off renting it and used the building for limited activities. He said their sign and the church itself were approved at this location by the Planning Commission, contingent upon approval of the variance by the. He said they have some activities going on now. He said it will become a training facility at this location. Mr. Sellman asked if there were church services and at what time. Mr. Noel replied they will have services on Sunday afternoons, but there will be no real office hours. Mr. Mail asked if they would be affiliated with any denomination. Mr. Noel replied the church was non-denominational. Mr. Balazs stated that the hardship is that the pre-existing building is downtown that has no setback. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DISCUSSION Mr. Mail stated it was a good location and a good use of the building. Ms. Werner stated it was an existing building and is not a detriment to the public. She said the strict application of the code would result in a hardship. She was in favor of approving the variance request. Mr. Balazs agreed with the comments made and did not feel that approval of the variance would be a detriment. Page 5
Ms. Howard stated she would like the hand-outs to be entered as part of the record. She said this was an existing structure, and they were reusing space. She said it meets all the criteria of the code. There were no other comments, so Ms. Howard asked for a motion. Motion: Mr. Sellman moved that in Case BZ12-022, The Light/Larry and Mary Noel, property located at 156 North Water, that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves a 100-foot variance from the 100-foot minimum structure and activity setback to allow a church to be located in the existing building at 156 North Water Street, as defined in Section 1171.01(1) of the City of Kent Zoning Code. Mr. Mail seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 5 0. B. BZ12-023 Travis Copen 501 Dodge Street Section: Request: 1155.04(a) The applicant is requesting a 48-foot variance from the 50-foot minimum front yard setback requirement to allow a building addition to be 2 feet from the front property line along Dodge Street. Ms. Howard asked the applicant to present his variance request. Travis Copen, 1101 Ravenna Road, Kent, Ohio, stated he was requesting a 48-foot variance from the 50-foot minimum front yard setback requirement to construct an addition of approximately 5300 square feet onto the existing machine shop building. He said the storm sewer and easement along the western side of the building limits the location of the addition. Mr. Balazs asked if he could live with a smaller addition if the variance was not granted. Mr. Copen replied that they wanted to maximize the addition now. Page 6
Mr. Copen stated that when the existing building was built, it sat about 18 feet from the front setback, so it did not meet the 50-foot setback requirement. Mr. Sellman asked where the previous property line along Dodge Street was. Mr. Copen showed the Board where the easements and property were located. Mr. Mail stated there would still be about 20 feet of grass from the edge of the proposed addition to the edge of the pavement along Dodge Street. Mr. Copen reviewed the traffic flow on the property. He said the trucks will go around the back and unload there. Mr. Sellman asked what the new addition would be used for. Mr. Copen replied it would have the same functions as the main building and be used for machines and warehousing. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DISCUSSION Mr. Balazs stated that the property shape and the existing easements create a hardship. Mr. Sellman agreed with Mr. Balazs and saw the hardship. Mr. Mail stated that the location would not be as obtrusive as it sounds because there is still 20 feet to the street. He said the sewer line is in the way. He said the lot is oddly shaped. Approving the variance would not be a detriment to the neighbors so was in favor of granting it. Ms. Werner agreed with the comments made by the other Board members. Ms. Howard stated the property was oddly shaped. There are easements and a storm sewer. She said the truck traffic will be less intrusive and probably less dangerous for the residents with the new plan. Approval of the variance would be no detriment to the code or to the neighborhood. She saw the extraordinary circumstances. There were no other comments, so Ms. Howard asked for a motion. Page 7
Motion: Mr. Mail moved that in Case BZ12-023, Travis Copen, property located at 501 Dodge Street, that the approves a 48-foot variance from the 50-foot minimum front yard setback requirement to allow a building addition to be 2 feet from the front property line along Dodge Street, as defined in Section 1155.04(a) of the City of Kent Zoning Code. Ms. Werner seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 5 0. C. BZ12-024 Smithers Oasis 919 Marvin Street Section: 1155.04(d) Request: The applicant is requesting a 74-foot variance from the 100- foot minimum side yard setback requirement to allow a new greenhouse building to be 26 feet from the side property. Ms. Howard asked the applicant to present his variance request. Jeff Malek, 7960 Boneta Road, Wadsworth, Ohio, stated they wanted to construct a new greenhouse on the property where a pole building was previously located. He said the new building will be 36 feet by 96 feet, and will quadruple their space for plants and research. He said they have considered other locations on the property, but concluded that this would be the best location. He referred to the plans and showed the Board where the water line runs. He said this location will avoid the existing utility lines to the main facility. Mr. Mail asked what the height of the new greenhouse would be. Dr. Rapaka replied it would be 21 feet or so. Ms. Howard asked if the evergreen trees will be removed. Mr. Malek replied they will not be removed nor will any trees along the fence line. Ms. Howard asked if there would be any additional noise, construction, lights, or odors that would possibly disturb the neighbors outside normal business hours. Page 8
Mr. Malek replied there will be people working in the building and customers during normal business hours. He said there are ventilation fans that are located on the north side of the building. Ms. Werner asked what the greenhouse would be used for. Mr. Malek replied it will be used for research and testing. Mr. Balazs asked what minimum size building that they could live with. He said he would like to approve the minimum variance. Mr. Malek replied that there are hardships because of the of the existing utility lines. He said this location would be beneficial in terms of horticultural factors because it will allow for the best angle of the sun, direction of the prevailing winds, and proximity to the existing research building. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DISCUSSION Mr. Balazs stated he could see the hardships that existed, but he would like to see the building moved so that a smaller variance of 8 to 10 feet could be shaved off. He said the plan was well thought out. He would like to reduce of the impact if someone should build on the adjacent property. Ms. Werner stated that she looked at the impact of the building on the current neighbors. Mr. Sellman agreed that it was well thought out. He said it was a low impact building to the neighborhood. He said hardships existed. Mr. Mail agreed with Mr. Sellman s statements. He said the existing trees will help hide the buildings. He said it was a good use for them and would allow for future expansion. Mr. Balazs said he would like the building to be moved to the west so that a minimum variance would be needed and granted. Page 9
Mr. Mail stated that the applicant came up with the best fit for what they wanted to do. He said the applicant could redesign the addition and come back before the at another meeting. He said he did not feel that it was a negative precedential design. Ms. Werner pointed out that none of the adjacent property owners were at the meeting. There was a discussion among the Board members about the lot sizes and the widths of the residences to the south. They also discussed moving the building and the size of the needed variances. Mr. Balazs again stated that the was supposed to grant the minimum variance from the code. Ms. Howard stated that practical difficulties existed. The residential properties have uneven lines. She said this location is best suited for the plants and employees and the five year plan for future expansion. She said the location is limited because the plants require different kinds of care. Granting the variance would not be a substantial detriment to the public interest or to adjacent property owners or the zoning code. There were no other comments, so Ms. Howard asked for a motion. Motion: Mr. Mail moved that in Case BZ12-024, Smithers Oasis, property located at 919 Marvin Street, that the approves a 74-foot variance from the 100-foot minimum side yard setback requirement to allow a new greenhouse building to be 26 feet from the side property line, as defined in Section 1155.04(d) of the City of Kent Zoning Code. Ms. Werner seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 5 0. IX. OTHER Mr. Fink stated that at a future meeting there will be a discussion about the revision and adoption of by-laws for the to keep up with the changes Page 10
made to the zoning code that are more current and more flexible. The Planning Commission is doing the same thing. Ms. Howard asked from an example of one of the by-laws. Mr. Fink replied one of them is attendance policy. This has not been a problem with the, but might have been for other boards. He said at times the code and the by-laws do not agree. He would be satisfied if the redundant ones were eliminated. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mr. Mail moved to adjourn. Mr. Balazs and Mr. Sellman seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 5 0. Meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.