Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Ms. Barhorst?

Here. Mr. Rader? Here. Mr. Roach? Here. Ms. Vest? Here. Mr. Essman?

Here. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

To move.

I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have two seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. It goes nay. Then the agenda is adopted. Time for our annual reorganization. As I asked before, we have the, would somebody like to nominate the chair?

I would nominate Ms. Dressman.

Any further nominations for the chair? Hearing none, I guess Ms. Dressman's the chair. And now we have the nominations for vice chair. Is there a nomination for vice chair?

I would nominate Ms. Barhorst.

Any other nominations? Hearing none, Ms. Barhorst, you are now the vice chair. Now, can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2026 meeting, please?

Motion to approve the meeting minutes from the May meeting.

Is there a second to that motion? There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. Moving right along, we have two public hearings today. First public hearing is V26-2. Deputy Clerk? Clerk?

Case number V 26 dash two on an application filed by Jennifer Reynolds and Lewis Martin. 469 Ramsgate Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45430, requesting a variance from chapter 158.105A2 of the City of Beaver Creek zoning code to allow a five foot high fence to be constructed within the 40 foot required front yard set back along North Emerald Court. The property is located on the northwest corner of North Emerald Court and Ramsgate Drive, further described as book three, page six, parcel 189 on the Greene County Property Tax Atlas.

Great, thank you. Mr. Funk, would you like to update us? And before you do, I'm going to ask you to swear in. Okay. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Help you God.

Yep. I, Matt Funk, affirm that the testimony I'm about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. board members so tonight we're discussing um a variance case at four six four sixty nine ramsgate drive um and uh basically uh here's our um do our little drive by video that we this is the applicant's home here it is a corner lot The video is running abnormally slow today.

Well, it's a 25 mile an hour speed limit. That's right.

So as you can see in this, this is a corner lot. So therefore, the applicant does have two front yards. And the applicant's house is on Ramsgate and also North Emerald, which is a short cul-de-sac.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Have we turned the corner where this is still the front yard?

No, this is behind the house. Okay. Yeah. So it would be the rear yard. Yeah, this is the rear or the other front yard depending on how you look at it. So that's the applicant's, the driver on the applicant's house. Basically, here's another shot of the frontage along North Emerald Court, basically looking down that side of the house. This is a view to the rear of the house. You can see there's a little bit of a slope in the applicant's yard in the back. And this is another view of the rear. For some reason, everything's running slow today. This is a view from the corner of Ramsgate and North Emerald of the house. And so this is basically what the applicant's proposing. They live on a corner lot. Basically on a corner lot, you have two front yards. The frontage in this case is along Ramsgate and North Emerald Court. North Emerald Court is a short cul-de-sac, I guess you could say. And so the bulb of the cul-de-sac actually kind of dips behind the applicants home a little bit, as you can see in the image there. And so they basically, in this case, in a corner lot with two front yards, you have two required front yards, which is 40 feet from the front property line, which is this blue line here all the way around, basically 40 feet back. The applicant does have the ability, in this case, in their entire yard, they can put up a 48 inch fence. So anywhere in the area that's shaded there, they can have a 48 inch fence, but the code does limit fences above four feet in the required front yard. So basically here's an image of basically you can see their house in the background, but you can see this line here basically is the building setback for their parcel. And basically between that line and the front property line, fences are limited to four feet. So basically in this greenish area here is where they can have a fence that exceeds four feet. So their lot is on a short corner lot. It is not common, but not completely unusual. We do have some other lots in Beaver Creek that are similar. Here's an example. Basically, you have, you know, a line, the front property line here, and again, it kind of dips back. So this person, you know, on their six-foot fence, basically, you know, they can't extend beyond the front of the house. Here's another one. Basically in this situation, the garage can be located in the front only because it's a garage and we allow garages in side yards and they can be even with the distance of the front of the house. So it meets that 40 foot setback. But again, basically this curves with the lot and comes across here. So again, anything outside of this area would be considered front yard and they would be limited. Here's another example that kind of similar to the applicant's house where again this is going to curve around and cut across here. So the applicant, I guess I got one more, this one again is similar to where again the front yard is going to cut around like this the 40 foot setback and then across right here. So again this this person would be limited to four feet. they can have four feet but limited to anything above four feet, you know, outside of kind of the same arc as the street 40 feet back. We have to have other examples where, you know, there are challenges. This is actually a triple frontage yard. So basically, the only place to put a six foot or a five foot fence or anything over over 48 inches would basically be in this little rectangle right here, because you have frontage on all three sides. So this person would be limited to Anything above 48 inches would have to be limited to this space back here. So obviously staff has recognized, the board knows that we've had, well, I don't know, we have a lot of new members on our board. Norm would know in the last few years we've had variances for double frontage lots and fences above 48 inches on double frontage lots. And here's an example of a double frontage lot where basically you have a road the front and then you have a road and to the rear of the house and so what you know after some some variance requests that have been denied and and some things that staff has looked at you know understood the problem how problematic that can be for some for some residents and the layouts of their house and We have increased the height of fences from 42 to 48 inch in the required front yard. And then we also allow houses basically who are on double frontage lots to allow their six foot or above 48 inch fence to encroach 50% into that required front yard. So in this case, this person, this is just an example, this person doesn't actually have a six foot fence, but basically their fence above 48 inches, I should clarify, could actually go from, you know, actually from up here around and back, but they can actually encroach, sorry, encroach into that front yard setback 50%. The applicant in their request did point out the fact that they feel like they have a multi-frontage property given the layout of that cul-de-sac in relation to their property. Although it doesn't necessarily apply, a 50 foot setback would basically be where that blue line would be in their situation. The red line would be the 40 foot setback line. But they are a corner lot and that Application of the code applies to basically double frontage lots Again, this is what the applicants requesting basically, you know that the Five foot fence to basically go along the sidewalk You know staff has You know the city and staff have basically worked to limit the height of fences in the required front yards throughout the city we have, you know, we've done some things on double frontage lots to account provide some accommodations, but not allow the fences to extend all the way to the front property line. And, you know, we're working to bring properties into conformance with our code. You know, and in this case, you know, to allow, you know, a fence to be five feet along the front property line basically kind of runs contrary to the efforts that we've been doing as staff to try to maintain the openness and compliance in that section. So basically, looking at our criteria, criterion number one, whether a reasonable return could be they could yield a reasonable return or beneficial use of the property. Staff, you know, basically the partial was developed, or was built, was developed in 1991 and the house was built. And, you know, basically since that time, you know, We feel like the house has been able to yield a reasonable return. It's been used residentially and has not even had a fence since 1991. So obviously, not having a fence hasn't inhibited the return on the investment in that house. So staff feels the criterion is not met there. The second criterion, whether the variance is substantial. Basically, looking at that, we feel like, you know, with locating a five-foot fence and the required front yard, in this case, you're looking at almost a 95%. They are going to be, you know, our code requires it to be two feet off the sidewalk. So we're looking at approximately 95% encroachment into that required front yard, which, you know, we basically feel is pretty substantial, a 95% encroachment into that 40-foot setback. You know, height limitations apply to all lot types, not just corner lots. You know, the double frontage lots like we talked about, the multi-frontage lots. And so, you know, you know, trying to limit the excessive heights of fences in those required front, in the required front yards is something that's universally applied across the city. And, you know, outside of, you know, the concessions that, you know, we built into the code for double frontage lots and that 50% setback, you know, barring a variance of some sort, Those aren't being installed in our community. And again, in 2023, we changed the code to allow fences and front yards to go from 42 inch to 48 inch, and also to allow the encroachment of 50% in the required front yard on double frontage lots. Lastly, one of the things the applicant pointed out was their backyard is sloped, and certainly they do have some slope in their backyard. But in evaluating that, we didn't feel that the slope was significant enough to warrant a taller fence. And so therefore, you know, and with that slope, even It's not a significant slope. It is certainly sloped. But even at that, the fence would even present a taller appearance from the roadway. If you're on the lower side of that fence, would even present from a static or from a viewpoint of the road would even potentially look taller. So, you know, basically staff feels that criterion is not met. Criterion number three, whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The ornamental fence, the fence itself, the ornamental fence is open in design and You know, we feel like the design of the fence would not necessarily be out of character, but the location would. You know, there's no other fences that we're aware of that are over 48 inches in the required front yard anywhere in that neighborhood. And again, that's being applied universally across the city as far as limiting those heights in the required front yard. And we feel like granting the variance would provide it create inconsistencies and give opportunities to similar requests, not only in this neighborhood, but other neighborhoods, you know, particularly, you know, other properties that, you know, maybe on short cul-de-sacs or double, you know, increased double frontages, you know, to allow that 100% or nearly 100% encroachment would, you know, open opportunity for other people to begin to ask similar requests. So basically staff does not feel like that criterion's met. Criterion number four, whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. Obviously we don't feel that any delivery of governmental services would be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. So that criterion is met. Fifth, the property owner would purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions at the time of the place of purchase of the property. We don't know that the applicant had knowledge or not. What we do know is that basically we've had our zoning code online for a long time. The applicant acknowledged their excitement of putting up a fence for their dogs and children when they purchased their property. So they certainly had opportunity with the availability of the code online and staff. We get calls all the time from people that, hey, I'm getting ready to buy this house. Can I do this in my yard, whether it's a shed, a fence? a camper, you know, can I put a camper on my yard? We get calls constantly or routinely from people that are looking to buy houses in Beaver Creek and want to make sure that the things they want to do, they're able to do with the house they're wanting to be purchased. So while I don't know if they had knowledge, they certainly had opportunity to, you know, inquire as far as what the restrictions are. Particularly with the way that lot's shaped and everything else, you know, it is somewhat unusual from the norm that's in the community. So in this case, we don't feel like the criterion has been met. The sixth criterion, whether the property owner's predicament can be feasibly handled through another method other than a variance. There are other options that the applicant could do in conjunction or in lieu of a 48-inch fence, one of which could use the use of other technologies like an invisible fence, They have end-wired ground systems or they even have wireless GPS systems that you could put on your dog so you could use that in conjunction with a 48-inch fence. You could establish a dog run, an area with it where you could have a taller fence in the yard. particularly for the dogs that if they weren't out there and just wanted the dogs to run, they could put them in those areas. You could use landscaping in conjunction with your fence, maybe to create kind of a buffer to the fence to keep the dogs off the fence if they were prone to jumping up on the fence. Training the dogs to not encroach on the fences. And, you know, while, you know, the options may not be, you know, preferable remedies for the applicant, we do feel like they potentially could be reasonable alternatives to a variance. So we don't feel like criterion is met. And then lastly, the spirit intent behind the zoning code requirements. You know, the zoning code requirement is to maintain the openness of streets and the aesthetic consistency throughout the city. And again, we do understand the applicant's desire to use an ornamental fence does, you know, more closely align with the spirit of that, you know, but it's the height and the location of that fence that we have issue with. And, you know, given the magnitude of the request as far as the amount, you know, the 95%, roughly 95% encroachment into the required front yard, the precedence that that potentially granting the variance could set, we don't feel like the spirit intent behind the zoning requirement would be met or the substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. So basically looking at it, basically we don't feel like the criterion were met except for criterion number four, which was the delivery of governmental services.

So we have some written input from someone located on Pennywood Drive.

I'm just wondering if that's in close proximity.

I don't know that Pennywood, is Pennywood Drive within that? I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.

You happen to know where Pennywood?

It's farther back in the subdivision? Okay.

Okay. Okay, so it's not in the immediate area and I can follow up with you all then. Okay, thank you.

Now my big question, Melissa, do you know if they received notice?

Okay.

And Matt, while we're waiting for that last question, with respect to the option of having a higher fence, 48 inches, in the area between the setback and the property line, I think you indicated that that was not strictly applicable here, but it also wasn't requested. Did I get that right? Correct. OK. Had it been requested, is the staff's recommendation still the same?

That's a good question. Actually, you know, we understand the uniqueness. There is some uniqueness to that property. We certainly wouldn't deny that. And I would think staff would be open to something, you know, something like that. Okay.

Let's go back to the original question.

So 4102 Pennywood Drive is within the 500-foot boundary of the property under question tonight.

Thank you. Let me open the public hearing. Does the owner...

Applicant speaks first.

That's what I was... Applicant, you'll come to the podium and read up what's in the upper left-hand corner.

I, Lewis Martin, 469 Ramsgate Drive, affirm that the testimony that I'm about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge.

I was wondering...

Thank you. I have a PowerPoint presentation. Am I allowed to plug a laptop in, by any means?

Do we have that capability? You're definitely allowed if we have the capability.

If not, I did print, just in case. It might be...

It might be better if you have it printed so that it can be incorporated into the record.

Yeah, I was just going to say, whether you should give a copy to Melissa, most importantly, as part of the record, whether you show it or whether you hand it out. You might want to do both.

I have six copies, so I can give one to each of the members, and then I can give you one after the meeting.

That's great.

Do you have one?

All right. I'll just give you mine.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Like I said, my name is Lewis Martin. I'm one of the owners of this house, and we moved in here in Beaver Creek in 2024, as Matt previously stated. We have two soon-to-be three children, and we have two very large dogs. We'll tell you more about those in a few minutes. We moved here. This is our first house. We moved here from the Columbus area. We both work in the local manufacturing space, so very excited to buy our first house here and move to Beaver Creek. I'll go to the first slide here, kind of I'm in the background. Let's see. Where's that mouse? There we are. Yeah, like I said, we moved to Beaver Creek, job relocation. We love to be here. Not only a great place to live and raise a family, but it's a great community and jobs we love. So overall, a great experience so far in these past two years. Like I said, we've got two boys, and we're about to have our first girl due this August. Our oldest, Ezekiel, is currently in kindergarten at Fairbrook. And we have two dogs, so you can see there. That's Kuma, and then that is Soba. They're both American Akitas. They're On the larger end, Kuma is about 120 pounds, and Soba is around about 100 pounds or so. They're also pretty tall. I don't have the height measurements, but you can kind of see through the picture overall size. As you saw previously, our house is on Ramsgate and also butts up into the North Emerald cul-de-sac. It is a pretty unique configuration. Not only are cul-de-sacs pretty unique and uncommon in their own right, but compared to the other cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood that is the only one that has a cul-de-sac, kind of ropes into the backyard. As you can see, this green line, similar to what Matt had showed earlier, is the proposed fence line for our fence. We did select a five-foot bronze ornamental fence, not only because we think it's just a nice-looking fence, but I think it maintained a lot of the stuff we want to do for our community, maintain the openness and such. Generally, like Matt said, it's going to be at least two feet offset from the sidewalk. It would start and end at the back corner of our house. It's about 92 feet from Ramsgate on the west side of the house and 82 feet from the street on the east side of the house. Total about 330 linear feet of fencing, and it will not obviously cross any property lines.

I Jennifer Reynolds affirmed that the testimony that I am about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the city of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge we did also We did also mock up what a four foot versus a five foot fence would look like for our backyard, showing specifically for the ornamental design that the look and feel is almost identical, especially with how sloped our backyard is. You can see with both fence designs that you can see the entirety of our house. because it is on a hill, there is no visibility constraints with the hill there. So that's just what I wanted to add.

Yeah, no, this is a great picture. I'm not good with AI yet, but maybe in the future I'll have to be. But thankfully, my wife is. So you can see kind of AI-generated image of what a currently approved four-foot fence would look like on the left and what our proposed five-foot fence would look like on the right. Obviously, from this angle, I don't think you see too much of a difference, at least in my opinion. In terms of the actual look and feel, I think it's very similar. However, obviously, giving us much more functionality in our backyard. Additional information, the area we wish to use, wish to fence in, is our backyard. Obviously, it's kind of designated as a required front yard. Functionally, it is our backyard. It creates a unique situation where typically as backyards, as you know, are allowed up to six foot fence. But since we have the cul-de-sac in our backyard, pushes that 40 foot setback pretty much all the way to our house, not allowing us to use any kind of backyard fencing for our functional backyard. Also mentioned the four foot fence, we did weigh those options and we spent a lot of time kind of looking at different alternate solutions. I've heard Matt mention that the slope is, obviously it exists, you can see it in all the pictures, but it wasn't significant enough. I don't know what would be considered significant enough, but it is about a 25% grade across that backyard surface, so over a four foot span you lose a foot of height. So if you think about like a dog, especially a dog of this size, if it's attempting to jump over a surface and it's gonna get a run up start of at least four feet, that fence is effectively a foot shorter than if it were completely flat ground. That also was a big portion of our requesting this five foot fence. Comparable properties, actually there's a good example. There's Pennywood right there for the question about where Pennywood is located. It is in our neighborhood. I don't know exactly how far it is, but it is obviously in this post here. This is all the cul-de-sacs in our neighborhood. I saw a few of the streets and addresses on Matt's slide. I'm not familiar with a lot of the street names that were on that one, so I'm not sure if that's Beaver Creek as a whole. But these are the cul-de-sacs are specific to our neighborhood. As you can see here, all the cul-de-sacs, generally the arrow is the direction of the back of the house. They're all pointing generally away from the cul-de-sac. This one here in red is our house. And if you look over the rest of them, They're all pointing generally away from the cul-de-sacs in question. Terry Court, which is one that Matt also showed, is probably what we'd consider the closest in similarity, where the backyard is parallel to the street which the cul-de-sac is on, but obviously ours is not parallel. It is directly encroaching into the angle of that backyard.

That's to say that it's not just a front and side, it's also our backyard and how we want to use our backyard too, which is kind of the uniqueness of our situation and why we're requesting the variance.

That's a very good point. I'd also mention that you can't see any slopes and grades here. I wish I thought of a topographical map here, but we didn't. If you saw here that most of these properties are much flatter than ours. Ours is pretty exceptional in terms of the slope. Like I said, a 25% grade. It loses a foot of height over a four foot span. On average, the cul-de-sac properties in our house are about 0.64 acres. Ours is 0.53. That doesn't mean we're about 17% smaller than the average cul-de-sac lot size, which also adds to the street encroaching closer to our house. There are zero other houses within our neighborhood with the backyard facing the street. Kind of similar to what I showed you in the previous slide. The closest one is Terrycote, where it's parallel to the street, but ours is obviously a tighter angle than parallel. Here's some examples of fence types in the neighborhood. Obviously kind of a wide variety of some chain links, some vinyl, some privacy fences, some wooden fences, and obviously an ornamental fence up here as well. So obviously kind of a wide variety, just kind of very standard of most neighborhoods. I will mention these are also fences we noticed. This is a six foot privacy fence and this is a five foot ornamental fence that are currently existing in our neighborhood. And they also are within the two feet setback of this walkway here. So in terms of if it's precedented, I would say there is some precedent where there's already five foot, six foot fences within close proximity of the walkways. I think it's just a good point to mention that we would not be the first to be in a situation, at least the third. Justification of violence. I'll kind of go in order, same as Matt. Whether the property in question can yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use. without the variance. I've mentioned the house was constructed in 1991. I saw the answer there by Matt. It never appeared to have a fence. We are not aware, obviously, of what the previous owners used for their property or what their functions were or how they wanted to use their backyard, if they had dogs or not, and obviously that changes kind of the functionality of how you're going to use your backyard. I would say that the argument that it's never had a fence in the backyard in the past doesn't necessarily mean it's not allowed to. I think every house doesn't have a fence until you build one. I think just saying it's not existed in the past is not necessarily a solid argument for not allowing it in the future. Obviously, some beneficial uses of backyards are you get to play with your kids, play with dogs, put swing sets up, all sorts of things. With the slope of our backyard and the geometry, the layout of the backyard, we don't really have the option to play too much stuff with our kids without having a fence in there. If you try to kick a soccer ball, it kind of rolls directly in the street. It's not very safe in terms of trying to teach kids how to play soccer or any other sports they learn along the way. And obviously playing with their dogs without offense there. It's pretty easy for them to run in the street. They could run in the street, get hit by a car. They could be attacked by their dogs. All sorts of different sorts of things. I'd say the... I'd say this criterion would be met since the portion of the yard that is the backyard has, in our case, no beneficial use of the property without being able to be fenced in, suitable for our pets and animals. our pets and our family. As of right now, we don't really get to use our yard. If we put our kids out there, we have to obviously make sure they're not running in the street, and if we put the dogs out there, we have to make sure they're not running in the street, so it ends up just us putting them on the leash. So I would say that the beneficial use is obviously going to be pretty great in terms of the functionality of the yard, which currently serves us no real function. Question number two, whether the variance is substantial. The variance request is to increase our maximum allowed height by a total of 12 inches. No more than necessary for the function of the yard. Obviously, like I said, in a typical backyard, it's allowed up to six foot. We're not trying to push the bounds. We just want the minimum viable option to make our backyard safe enough for our family. That's why we chose a five foot fence over a six foot fence. And that's why we chose a ornamental look over the other options like vinyl or privacy fence or so. Like I mentioned before, because of the slope over yard, the fence won't feel as tall. The grade changes. However, what it really appears to be, if you look at the fence from the street view, like I showed in that AI generator image, is yes, the fence is obviously going to be taller if it's five foot versus four foot. However, since everything behind the fence is above the footer of the house, everything is still completely visible. I would actually argue that since the fence is still not going above the footer of the house in terms of view from the street, there'd be no impact in terms of the viewing of the house or viewing of the elevation or viewing of the neighborhood. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. I'd like to mention that, kind of going back to the uncommon and unique nature of this property, our property is the only example neighborhood where the backyard of the house is pointing directly into the street and cul-de-sac. I would say, kind of like Matt mentioned, it's not just simply double frontage. I'd argue it's even like a triple frontage or multi frontage or whatever the proper terminology is for that. This again is the only property that I would really describe this as in our neighborhood. We understand why the zoning rules are in place. We're requesting this variance because our lot is so unique. And therefore, it wouldn't open up the ability for everyone. There are zero other lots in the neighborhood with a backyard facing this road. I understand there's a fear where if you set precedents, then it becomes a popular thing to request. However, I think precedents being set here is only applied to us. Because of the shape of the lot, but also the slope of the lot, It's really just our house in this neighborhood that matches this description. I'd say the neighborhood style, kind of like I showed you earlier, neighborhood style currently uses a variety of fence types, privacy fences, chain link fences, vinyl fences, wood fences, and ornamental fences. So we're not changing the character in terms of the stylistic input of the fence. And then I also mentioned that one of the really nice things about this process for us has been the neighborly support. People we've not ever met or not had the opportunity to meet before have voiced their support for us. I think of at least maybe a dozen or so people that we've never met have come up to us or emailed or texted us saying, hey, we support this. Thanks for sending out some good communication. Also, the packet you're reading right now, we did send out as a letter to the 500-foot general area of our house. That's how we got a lot of feedback. We added our email, cell phone, so they could reach out and give us feedback if they wanted to. And that's been a really cool thing, actually, because it's given us an opportunity to meet and talk to a lot more of our neighbors. Let's see, next. Whether the variance would affect the delivery of governmental services. Me and Matt both agree it would not affect any governmental services. So I'll just move on to the next one. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions in place of the time that he or she purchased. We were unaware that our back and side yard would be classified as a front yard. During our research around, we quickly found that Beaver Creek allows up to a six foot fence in back and side yards. We were unaware, however, the interpretation classifies our back and side yard as a front yard. So obviously, it is available online. You can find it. We did not, so I would say we were not aware of this, and I think it's a good faith understanding as to why. This is, like I said, our first home. Just doing some basic research on the area that we've never lived in before, we found that back and side yards were allowed six-foot fences. So I'd say the criterion's met because the question is whether we knew. Obviously we did not. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. I'd say I saw Matt's suggestions. Me and Matt actually talked about it before we even put this application in. I met with Matt and came over to our house and kind of showed him our lot and what our kind of goals were for what we want to do and kind of the constraints we have. Some of the suggestions he made were an invisible fence, which I've done a fair amount of research into because not only would that be much cheaper than installing an ornamental fence, but it would obviously keep it code compliant and we wouldn't have to go through this process of requesting a variance. I will say during my testing, because I did buy an e-caller device to test the functionality of it, and also just research from other sources and other anecdotes, especially from our neighbors as well, we found that an invisible fence would not create a suitable barrier for other animals to enter our yard. It would also not be a good device to keep our children in the yard. Obviously it's very clear, but I just had to state it out. As well as some pretty troubling things we found online and just talking with people in our neighborhood who actually experienced invisible fences, that dogs, especially large dogs, can become more aggressive as they are used to invisible fences. They obviously get an electrocution. electronic shock in the neck when they get close to the barrier, what that can do oftentimes is it makes them have a fight-or-flight reaction, and whatever is near them, if there's an individual or an animal, can actually create them to think, this thing just attacked me, I need to defend myself. So we've seen stories of people walking by the street, the dog goes up generally to, they're curious about the person, they get shocked, and then they've bitten that person. Not only is there stories online about that, I do also have printouts of two articles that discuss that kind of situation. But an anecdote from our neighborhood that had, from our adjoining neighbor who had that exact same situation after them with a previous neighbor somewhere in the neighborhood. I'm not sure if it was in our neighborhood, but previously in their life where they were walking down the street. There was a German Shepherd that was behind an invisible fence. It kept going up to the individual trying to be curious about the person. It kept getting shocked and eventually it snapped and it bit that person pretty badly where they had to be hospitalized. So obviously with soon to be three young kids, there's no chance I'm going to be risking putting a device that could potentially make my 120 pound dogs aggressive. More so than just that, large prey-driven dogs will often break through invisible barriers and absorb the shocks as their adrenaline kicks in. Our dogs are large. They're prey-driven. They're working dogs. If they see a rabbit, if they see a squirrel, they generally want to go get it. We've seen where they will try to do their very best to get to any sort of prey they can find. If it sees a rabbit or a squirrel or even a fox, it will run through that barrier. And I've tested this with the e-caller that we tried. When we saw a rabbit outside, my large dog was really trying to get it and was not responding to any of the e-caller inputs. So not only do we have some, I can hand them out later, but not only do we have some stories from like New York Times articles, as well as a couple other sources, but our own anecdotal evidence that we tried out. It also is, Open to too many equipment malfunctions to really be a total fail-safe for 100% security. The likelihood of batteries dying, failure to detect a breach of the area, failure of the collar to make sufficient contact with the dog's skin, failure of electrical power to the in-ground wire, or failure of the in-ground wire being dug up or damaged are all things that can happen that would obviously eliminate the benefit of the invisible fence. We also mentioned landscaping. That was something Matt brought up. And that is something we also looked at because I think that would be a really nice look. We were doing a lot more looking at the zoning code now than when we obviously first bought the house. And we looked at code 158.105 saying that hedges over 48 inches are not allowed with any required front yard. So any kind of hedging that we could put to inhibit their movement towards the fence wouldn't necessarily be allowed anyway. And it would also just be an additional thing on top of a fence. So I don't think that's necessarily a functional use. Training, that was something else that they'd mentioned. As much as I love to say training can replace a fence, I really do disagree. You can have the most well-trained dogs and if they have a praying stick kick in, if they wanna chase a rabbit, if they wanna chase a squirrel, there's a likelihood that they will go through that fence or they will go, or sorry, they'll go through, pass their training they've gotten and do what their base instinct does.

I just want to say that the four foot fence, which obviously is the most obvious option, right, because we're allowed to have a four foot fence, would not work for our dogs because they will jump right over them. I have baby gates in my house that are about three and a half feet tall. They jump right over them. not even a question about it. So a four-foot fence with a sloped backyard, they're jumping right over it. We can train them as much as possible, but there's always that one time, and I don't want to risk that for my dogs, for my family, for my neighbors. So I just wanted to put that out there.

That's a very good point.

Yeah, we do. We have three baby gays inside of our house that are three and a half feet tall each. Thankfully, the kids can't get past them, but sure enough, it's kind of funny. You watch your dogs going around the house, and they just leap over them like they're going to open up the fridge or something. Just everyday practice for them. So like she said, three and a half foot fences easily jumpable for them on flat ground. A four foot fence on, like I said, a 25% grade. That math adds up to be pretty similar. And then finally, Oh, sorry, this kind of shows as well kind of what we mentioned before, the slope, the grade. Across this 58 foot portion here, there is an eight foot drop, and locally across this portion right here, there's that 25% grade like I mentioned, where it drops one foot of height over four foot of run. Over here you can kind of see what Matt had mentioned. If we use the maximum allowable area for a greater than 48 inch fence would be in this red area here. However, I know you can't see it here, but there's an AC unit here. There's a electrical, I'm not sure what you call them, but like an on-ground transformer. as well as an AT&T fiber optic pedestal in this area, as well as, say, maybe four or five trees. Yeah, five very large trees, and it's all landscaped in between them, so that area is really non-functional for us if we were going to try to fence in like a dog run sort of situation like you'd mentioned. And then...

our doors exiting our house are not in that area. So while yes, we'd be able to have our five or six foot fence, it's just an added inconvenience of not even being able to let our dogs out of our house. So that's just another point we wanted to bring up too.

Yeah, and I will also say this is a deck here. That's why there's an error there. But these are the two doors to leave the back of our house. So just think of that process where you want to take your dogs out, you have to walk out into your yard and then through a gate and then lock them in there. And then you can't even be part of your house. You can't be part of this patio that we have here. So that's just another kind of limitation that would be very abnormal for that. I think this configuration would be actually the most abnormal configuration to put our house into. Not only would it be non-functional as a backyard, but it would just look abnormal to the rest of the yard and the rest of the neighborhoods. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. This is the one where I think this is really the most applicable for us, where I think we can generally interpret that the spirit and intent of this zoning requirement is that we want to keep an open space. Our neighborhoods are nice, and they're large, and they have plenty of room. We want to make sure that fuel is kept. However, I think the difference here is that because since our double frontage portion is into a short cul-de-sac, it's not as if there's through traffic. It's not as if there's going to be a main thoroughfare going by our house. It's not like you're violating any sight lines. I think a good portion of this is A, for the look and aesthetic of the neighborhood, but also the safety and sight lines of the neighborhoods. I would say that the sight lines are not affected and I think the aesthetic is maintained. As you can see here, it's approximately 80 feet from the intersection of Ramsgate and Emerald, which is the busier road. Obviously, you get some through traffic there. And like I said, 80 feet, so it's not going to create a visible hazard. It is only 12 inches higher than the allowed four foot fence. And since we did go for the ornamental option, I think that does mitigate any sort of openness restrictions we might have. I'd argue that a four foot wood panel fence would be much more closed and create a less open environment than a five foot ornamental fence. And I would argue it does not substantially alter the neighborhood character. As I mentioned, the fence type and style already exists, as well as the proximity to walkways and such. So here's our summation of the justification for variance, like I mentioned. Would it yield a reasonable return and is there beneficial use to the property without it? I would say that our current backyard has no beneficial use to us. So by adding this fence, it does open up the opportunity for that. Whether the variance is substantial. The 12-inch height increase is what I consider very low impact. However, it's such a high reward being able to reclaim that portion of our backyard and use it for typical backyard activities. Essential characters maintained of the neighborhood. Like I said, style. Style of the fencing and going from back corner to back corner of the house is already very prominent and existing in the neighborhood. No governmental interference. Us owners, we need to brush up on our zoning code obviously. At the time we did not know about the limitations in terms of the 40 foot setback for anything over 48 inches. And then we did look at many, many other options for fence types. The option we were going for today is obviously one of the most expensive options you can do. So we've obviously looked at cheaper options. However, we've come to the realization that nothing alternating from our five-foot ornamental fence would be as sufficient as some of the alternate options that were proposed. and then the spirit and intent of the learning requirement. The space is gonna maintain its openness and spacious feel as well as maintaining sight lines so there's no impact to driver or pedestrian safety.

with that I do want to highlight that you know we understand why the zoning requirements are in place right we understand why Beaver Creek wants to keep the open feel and look and the safety of all the neighborhoods We're requesting this because we believe our property is unique. Maybe there's one or two other properties like ours in the entirety of Beaver Creek, obviously. In our research, we didn't see any. And then the second point is safety. We want our kids to be safe. We want our dogs to be safe. We want our neighbors to be safe. And those are really the two big hitters for us and why we want and are requesting the variance to a five-foot fence.

I agree. As you can tell, we're both engineers. She's much more of the colorful character. She's got much more artistic input. I'm kind of black and white when it comes to some of the stuff.

In terms of...

Conclusions and summary, like we mentioned, we're just requesting this fence due to the unique nature, not only of the parcel shape, but also the slope and gradient that we're dealing with with our property. We wish to obtain the 12-inch height increase in our backyard, and we'd be very excited if you were to approve this variance. I believe that is all I have for you. If you are curious for any of those articles I mentioned, I can also hand those out if it was in the record, if that'd be advisable. I didn't speak to them necessarily, but if we want to add them just so they can be used in terms of deliberation or thought process.

If you'd like them in the record, please pass them to the deputy clerk. Anything else?

No, once I hand these out, that is all I have for you.

Great, thank you. Any questions for the applicant from board members?

I do have a question for you. Yes. With respect to the page, we had some examples of fences adjacent to a roadway. Yes. Do you want me to bring up that? I was hoping you'd be faster than I was.

Is this the slide you're talking about?

Yes. I don't recognize the roadway. What's the asphalt surface that I'm looking at?

So that is a walking path between, it is Abbey Gate and the Westerly Street. Is that Pennywood? Yeah, so it's Pennywood and Abbey Gate is a walkway between those two streets.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else?

Not in terms of questions, thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

Sure. Regarding that same picture, are those two fences bordering double-fronted properties?

I'm not sure. I'd have to check. Yeah, I don't think they are. I think those are in the cul-de-sac, but their backyard is facing the traditional away from the cul-de-sac orientation.

Thank you. Again, any other questions for the applicant?

If not, thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Be ready though, there may be other questions.

Yes.

This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak at the public hearing, please feel free to come up and read the notice in the upper left-hand corner.

I, Bradford West, affirm that the testimony I'm about to give before the board of zoning appeals The city of Beaver Creek is the whole truth, to the best of my knowledge. And I'm sorry, my address is 4030 North Emerald Court. So I'm the corner lodge immediately across the cul-de-sac from Lewis and Jenny. First of all, I'd like to attest that they have been a blessing to the community since they moved in. The former owners were not troublesome. They just were absentee and kind of let their property fall into somewhat disarray. It wasn't falling apart, but the lawn wasn't kept very well, and the house sat empty, and quite apparently so from the outside looking in. A couple points of perhaps safety that I would have to add in support of them. There is no shortage of wildlife traversing through our neighborhood that would absolutely trigger their dogs to want to snap into one of those animal instincts and want to chase after it. And there is also, and this could be another topic for another day, but there's no shortage of e-bike riders racing through our neighborhood down the main stretch. Margate is the main stretch, and there are a lot of people A, e-bike riders who are whipping through there at speeds in excess of 30 miles an hour. If they came into contact with a toddler, it would hurt them severely. And personally owned vehicles. They're taking a shortcut through our neighborhood from Grange Hall up to Shaker Town Road trying to get to 675 or get to the green or whatever it is. So while it is a wonderful neighborhood and fairly quiet, it has its own hazards that would present to a toddler or an animal. WALKED OUTSIDE THEIR PROPERTY UNKNOWINGLY. PERSONALLY, I LOVE THEIR DESIGN OF THE FENCE. I THINK IT'S BEAUTIFUL. I DON'T SAY THIS IN MALICE, BUT I THOUGHT THE USE OF THE 95% WAS A BIT EGREGIOUSLY OVER THE TOP. IT'S ONLY A 20% INCREASE IN HEIGHT, ANOTHER NUMBER FOR YOU. AND IT'S ONLY 50% OF THEIR ACTUAL PROPERTY. SO YOU SAY 95, I SAY 20 OR 50, WHATEVER. YOU CAN TAKE FROM THAT WHAT YOU WILL. I give my blessing to them, and I've spoken to Mr. Dan Austria and Mr. Tony Saliva, two other property owners on our cul-de-sac. We're all in support of it. I didn't get the chance to speak to our fifth property owner on our cul-de-sac. He's fallen into bad health, so we don't see a whole lot of him lately. But everyone that I've spoken to anecdotally in the neighborhood supports them and wish them the best use of the property that they've come to love. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak at the public hearing? Step forward.

My name is Adelina Rojas. I attest that I'm about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you.

I'm also a resident of Beaver Creek. You'll have my here and next, but just in support of this lovely family. I work at the Red Patterson Air Force Base at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. We're dealing with a lot of human trafficking. that unfortunately happens throughout the country and having children I'm not a parent, but I have nieces, nephews, and God forbid that nowadays we worry more about the landscape and design than the safety of the family. So please take my opinion into consideration. Over 15 years of my professional knowledge as a military operations officer, as an intelligence Analyst that deployed for this country that we need to put our people before we put everything else. Thank you so much.

Thank you You know what else like to speak in the public hearing? Anyone at all If not, I'm going to close a public hearing Public hearing is closed Board members any discussion.

Mr. Essman. I would I would like to put into record that we did receive

four emails each Board of Zoning Appeals member did receive those as well thank you very much discussion among the board in terms of the design of your fence I think what I'm hearing here is you've got a very solid proposal it would be attractive for your neighborhood The staff feels like it might be an encroachment for your neighbors, but I have a number of neighbors saying differently that they would welcome it. But I think the big problem that I'm seeing here is that pretty routinely, people come in and they will recite, I would like to do something special on my property, and here's my compelling reason why, such that there are never any uniform rules, because everyone appears to be the exception. What I think I clearly see as a very hard line is the fact that the fence would go right up to the end of your property line where the sidewalk is. And that's where I think that staff felt that they couldn't work with you but also didn't have a different proposal. Matt, if I may ask, if we had a pool in the backyard, what would the height of a fence need to be for a safety fence for a pool?

Excuse me, five feet.

OK. So we would have a requirement for a five-foot fence in some instances. We just don't have it here, even in the same location.

Right. Yeah, we have a requirement for a five-foot fence in some locations. And we also have requirements for maximum height, even in rear yards of some fences, a max height for a four-foot fence, like a split rail or a... There are different fence heights depending on the type of fence. But yes, you're correct. For a sewing pool, you need a five foot fence.

I would like to get you to where you want to be. I really would. But I'm also put here to honor a zoning code and not just with a magic wand, say this one gets it, that one doesn't. And some of the points that you made, I definitely agree with. The fact that your house sold means that it has a backyard that people value. It's just not ideal for your uses. And I would like to see something that's ideal for your use. I think if I could have more input with this, and I don't know that you would want it, I would be prepared to try to amend this to get you something more closely approximating what staff has said it might be willing to give its blessing to by treating you as if you were a double-sided lot to give you the five-foot fence but in a different location. it seems to me that would sort of serve what city has put staff here to do and what they've asked us to do but also sort of accommodates your circumstance but you've not asked for that and i don't know if i were to move to amend this if it would even be supported or if you would want it but i could see some some room for some further accommodation and as people pointed out this isn't an issue of whether you get a fence or don't get a fence you can get a fence at four feet all day long because you're entitled to that. It's the fact that it's higher. And as soon as this one goes in, someone else is going to say, I need a five-foot fence because I have very large dogs. And then we just never get past this problem because everyone will have the exception. I need a bigger garage because this is my hobby and I want new cars put in my garage. And all of a sudden, everybody has a reason. So that's where I'm trying to weigh all this in.

Thank you.

Anything else? Anyone else? Matt, I do have a question for you. And if the applicant can take his slide back to slide 17, please.

Yes.

Lower right-hand corner. Matt, is that an accurate depiction of a five-foot fence location?

the where the low right hand corner so the um yes yeah that's that's fairly accurate yes so if you wanted a five foot fence then it would bisect his yard correct yes it has to be outside that required front yard area in that front yard encroachment

into, quote, what he's calling his backyard, which is not what we would call a rear yard.

Right. It's certainly to the rear of his house.

Is due to really the encroachment of the way the cul-de-sac swings into his lot. Is that correct and accurate?

Correct, yes.

So does this happen a lot in Beaver Creek, or is this a fairly unique lot configuration?

All those examples I showed you were all examples in Beaver Creek. A couple were actually in this neighborhood. And again, we have the examples of multi-frontage lots, whether it's a triple frontage lot or a double frontage lot, where people have a road to the rear of them. um it's not necessarily uncommon in beaver creek um you know to have but it is rather uncommon for the cul-de-sac to sweep into a person's what he would call a backyard um yeah i mean i think in um some of the examples i i showed you we can go back to those if you needed to but i think all those examples had some degree of sweeping into you know into that you know either side or rear yard um similar to this and sometimes it just depends on the orientation of the house on the lot but That's the other issue.

It seems like the orientation of this house on the lot diminishes his ability to utilize that lot.

Certainly.

Certainly.

But again, there's, you know, the limited space in the yard to the rear of the house or, you know, required front yard, say, you know, to the rear of a house is certainly not an uncommon situation in the city of Beaver Creek. So I will point out that the The pictures that he showed of the side, the fences along the, that was actually probably along, it looked like it was along the walking path, so that wasn't actually frontage.

I understand that. You mean the nasty looking fences?

With the two fences that he showed, yeah. We understand that. I understand that. Because even though they were kind of offset, those were a walking path, which was not adjacent to it.

And it's apples and oranges there. Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

I think I would like to ask the applicant a question. I apologize if I'm out of order, but I would be amenable to tabling this and sending you back to staff. And I would tell you what I would be supportive of generally in this circumstance is to get you a five foot fence, but not going all the way to the property line and seeing if we couldn't accommodate it to get over to one of your entrances. Now, if you would like to have that opportunity in lieu of having us vote, that's up to you.

I think we both want to think out loud here for a minute. If it's not going all the way up to the sidewalk, right, that back area is full of trees. So there's essentially no way to put the fence going through those trees. right unless we cut them down and right the slope does also get worse so that area in red is probably your most sloped part of the yard um and then yeah you'd be cutting down trees and then essentially you can see that there's a patio there so it would have to go around the patio unless we're also ripping up the patio so that's me thinking out loud through that scenario like we are not unwilling to work with anyone right I'm just trying to see how that accommodation would work

I'll say I put the mouse pointer, oh it was there for a second, the mouse pointer on the edge of the patio, it's kind of covered by the shadow, but the patio does, there's a portion here and also kicks out to here. So to your point, if you were going to move this over, it would still most likely bisect the patio portion here even if we moved over between from this point to this corner of the house. I do appreciate that thought, though. If this is not approved, then I think I'll definitely take some steps and maybe we can try to find other solutions. Like I said, we've already put some good thought into the alternate solutions. Every time we thought of an alternate solution, we found either a... a pretty reasonable issue as to why it couldn't work. And kind of the same with this, where if we fenced in the allowable area, we're going to bisector house. And if you try to go anywhere between the back corner of the house and where it is allowed, you're cutting in the middle of this patio pad right here, as well as also If we move this line anywhere further from here to here, you can kind of see there's also some hedges there and some very, very large trees. So I think any movement away from what we requested would require some form of cutting down trees and breaking up concrete, which I think would be much less attractive an option and much more difficult for us to actually complete. And also I think these trees naturally are probably a better look for the neighborhood in terms of natural feel for how our neighborhoods are laid out. But thank you though.

Yeah, I'm not a solution in search of problems here. I don't want you tearing out trees and removing patios and whatnot. But it seems to me there would be some way to accommodate coming from here over here and it would be very specifically defined in relation to that property line somehow in a way that I can't just throw language together here and also the fact that this would be an open fence design I think is very material meaning that if some point down the line you know the third person that buys your house after you leave, you know, says, Hey, that fence is all dilapidated. I want to put up a wood stockade fence. You know, that's the problem that we would have to deal with. So that, that would be a condition as well. So it's not just the variance would be tying down that material.

Yeah, and I think I did a little bit of research in terms of previous variances that were approved, and I have seen that some of them were approved due to the fact they are ornamental fences. And so I agree. I think that's a big portion of why we wanted an ornamental fence, because I think not only does it naturally maintain the aesthetic of the neighborhood and the openness and feel like we already mentioned, but that it also, how do I say, I'm trying to blank now. Okay.

Okay.

you know when we originally submitted the request we submitted it in good faith we had no idea obviously that this is where it would take us you know my husband reached out to Matt to come over to our house to see our yard and I don't think ever once was it even mentioned that we have alternatives or open it up.

Let me address that. You don't. He gave you the right answers. That's what the zoning code requires. What I'm telling you is we have factors that we have to follow and I think I could support an argument that we are still doing the intent of the zoning code by carving this out a little bit more.

I am 35 weeks pregnant. We can go back and forth with this until December, but I will be out starting in, I don't know, maybe three weeks, maybe five, maybe six. So, unfortunately, I know that this extends our timeline further than we already hoped.

So, that I think...

make sure all of our audience members stay near the mic I'm I'm told from the back well we could get you back here for our next scheduled meeting I mean that could be 30 days but we'll vote on it if that's how you wish

Yeah, I think that's the way we want to go. If it's not approved, then I think we'll have to start doing some math and kind of getting some quotes for what would be alternate. Maybe also working with Matt and see what a, not say approved, but what would a staff approved mitigation be. So if I work with him a little bit, because like I said, I don't want to sign up for anything. I don't want to change our request at all until I can kind of see what the scope of that would look like.

Before we go, Mr. Rader, I think you've expressed sort of the same concern that I have, is that the nature of this lot, really, is one that, with this the way the cul-de-sac cuts in really diminishes their ability to utilize the lot as they wish to keep their dogs in.

I just wanted to comment in particular to the dogs issue. I think as Mr. Roach pointed out, the issue of a variance is not particular to what an owner has. If I have 18 cars and I need a garage that's twice as big as what the limit is, that's not that's not the city's problem.

I understand that, but the point being that if I want a five-foot fence, if I want a pool, there's hardly any place I can put it on this lot.

And I think if they were looking for a variance for a pool with a five-foot fence around it, that you could take into consideration the shape of the lot, but that's not what's before us now. It's just whether this particular lot, as is, can have a four-foot fence or not, or I guess in this case a five-foot fence.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion to be had?

I will move on. I'm going to move to a vote on whether or not to approve the variance.

You have to move in the affirmative. And even if you want the variance to not be passed, you can make an affirmative vote and vote against it. To say I want to bring it to a vote is not, you gotta.

People have to know what the decision is.

Yes.

Okay, because last time I did that, that wasn't correct. So okay, I'm gonna move to deny the variance or vote to deny the variance.

Is there a second? We have the voice vote, please. The motion is to deny the variance.

And just to be clear, when you vote, because this is a motion in the negative, make it clear whether you want the variance to be denied or approved in what you say. Because technically, if you say yes, I'm voting to deny, it's a double. If you say no, meaning you want it to approve, it's a little weird. So make it very clear when you vote. My vote is to deny the variance, or my vote is to approve the variance.

Mr. Rader.

Deny.

Mr. Roach.

Deny.

Ms. Vest.

Approve.

Ms. Barhorst. Deny. Mr. Essman.

Approve. The motion carries to deny the variance. Hopefully you can get together with Matt and maybe see if you can work something out and bring it back to us. And thank you for your preparation. I think that your presentation was one of the best that we've seen in a long time. Thank you. We have another public hearing in case before us. Deputy Clerk, would you mind opening this up for us?

This is case number V26-3 on an application filed by Sean Barrett, 2411 Lance Road, Beaver Creek, Ohio, 45434, requesting a variance from Chapter 158.104A of the City of Beaver Creek Zoning Code to allow an accessory structure, a shed in the side yard, and a variance from Chapter 158.104D to allow an accessory structure to exceed the 16-foot maximum height requirement. The property is located three lots west of the intersection of Beaver Valley Road and Lance Road, further described as Book 5, Page 18, Parcel 57 on the Greene County Property Tax Atlas.

Thank you. Matt, do you have anything for us?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today we have... A variance request for 2411 Lance Road. Basically, my video, my drive-by video, you'll be disappointed to know it didn't, it corrupted or something. Something went awry this afternoon. I'm not sure what happened to it. So we don't have a drive-by video, but the applicant's house actually sits pretty far off the road, and with the landscaping or the trees and stuff in front, there wasn't much to see anyway. But this is a view of the applicant's house from the roadway. You can see his house here, the applicant's house here, and Basically, this is an old dilapidated shed that the applicant's actually looking to remove. There's the shed there. That shed is actually on an adjoining property. So when you see down through here, the shed is actually on the neighboring property behind the applicant's. And from this perspective, you can kind of see the narrowness, basically, of the applicant's backyard. SO IN LOOKING AT THIS, THE RED SQUARE HERE IS THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING SHED, THE DILAPIDITY SHED. THE BLUE BOX IS BASICALLY WHERE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SHED BE LOCATED. THE ORANGE LINE IS BASICALLY THE 10-FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. SO THE SHED CANNOT BE YOUR BUILDING. IT'S A LARGE SHED. IT CAN'T BE ANY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINES THAN THAT ORANGE LINE THROUGH THIS AREA. when when looking at this you know and even looking at alternatives you know there was even even locating the shed over here it would have extended into the side yard so because of the narrowness of the applicant's backyard the rear yard no matter where the applicant tried to put it in this back basically was not going to be acceptable there was no place to put it without a variance here's a little bit closer view And basically the green line would indicate basically the rear yard in this case for the applicant. And again this blue square is basically the applicant's proposed building size and on either side it would have extended into that side yard and required a variance. So basically when looking at this, basically We don't believe that denial of the variance would prevent the applicant from obtaining a reasonable return or prevent the beneficial use of the property. We do think the property could be used beneficially. There could be a reasonable return on that property without the variance. So we do not feel that criterion was met. Whether it was substantial, basically the structure is basically going to be approximately 318 feet from Lance Road and 90 feet from the adjoining neighboring house. Given the proximity of the house to the rear lot line and the distance that the shed is going to be away from the neighboring properties, we feel that the of the variance request is outweighed by the applicant's actual ability to place the structure in the rear yard. So we do feel that that criterion is met. I'm sorry. Let me back up. There are actually two requests in this case. One is for the height of the structure. The other is for the location. So in this case, we're obviously looking at the location of the shed. So in that regard, criterion one, we felt both requests were WERE NOT MET. AND UNDER CRITERION TWO WITH SUBSTANTIALITY, WE DO FEEL LIKE THE CRITERION TWO WAS MET FOR THE FIRST REQUEST. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FEEL LIKE IT WAS MET FOR THE SECOND REQUEST OF THE HEIGHT. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 19.5 FEET ABOVE THE ADJACENT GRADE AT THE HIGHEST at the highest point of ground level so as the grade drops off to the east it actually will be even higher so at its lowest point it'll be 19 and a half feet above grade and you know staff does not find any uniqueness about the property that would warrant that variance request the afghan does have the ability to construct a compliant building and like i said the slopes to the east would cause the structure to look even even larger or higher above the ground than what it would be from the western side. And so we do not feel that criterion two was met for the height variance. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance request. For both of these, request one and request two for the location and the height, we do feel that this criterion was met. the house sits so far off the road and it is so far from the joining properties, we do not feel that, you know, that there would be substantial detriment to the neighboring properties and, um, that, you know, there, and, um, you know, that the character would of the neighborhood would not be altered, um, because of the, the location, the size of the lot, the distance off the road and all that. So we do feel like that one was met. Criterion four, the adversely affecting governmental services. Again, staff, we felt like basically in this one, we felt also the criterion was met. Again, granting of the variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. Criterion five, whether the owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions. As far as the location, we have no idea if back in 1998, if the applicant was aware of any restrictions as far as the location or anything as far as the shed. So basically, we're kind of neutral on that. I can't attest to one way or the other. However, on the request, the second request, while the applicant was unaware that While I'm not sure if the applicant was aware of the knowledge of the restrictions of the code, the applicant did apply for a detached garage in 2023 that was expired. And so those height restrictions were also applicable in 2023. And so there was the applicant obviously going through that process would have been informed potentially what the height restrictions were and things like that for that. And so while I can't attest to whether or not he knew about it at the time of purchase, certainly prior to the application for the structure going through this process previously and his permit expiring. Basically, in 2023, he applied for a detached garage and decided not to construct the detached garage, and the permit expired. And he's basically come back now with a application for basically a shed or a large building that's not a garage, I should distinguish the difference between the two. A detached garage would be allowed in the side yard. A structure that's not a detached garage is not allowed in the side yard. So since it's not going to actually be a garage, that's why he's coming forward with a variance. But in either case, our max height on a detached structure is 16 feet. whether the property owner's predicament could be feasibly, you know, obliviated through another, some other means other than the variance. On the first request, we don't really see other than, you know, for the size structure of these requesting and the proximity of the house to the rear property line. I mean, there's not, you know, it would have to be, you know, Significantly, I guess the applicant, I guess in theory, I guess he could reduce the size of the structure. But it would actually be a pretty large reduction to try to squeeze it in with the setbacks and everything into that rear yard. But for the size structure that he's wanting to build, the 20 by 24, basically we don't see any viable solution other than a variance to locate that structure into the side yard. So we feel that's met. However, on the second request, Yeah, the applicant does have the ability to construct a detached structure that meets the requirements of the code. There's nothing unique about his property that is preventing him from building a 16-foot structure as required by the code. The applicant did, in his information, say that he wanted the additional height for additional storage on a second story of the structure. If the applicant needs additional storage, he could increase the footprint of the structure instead of increased height. So there is a means to accomplish that goal without actually doing additional height. But a 16-foot height is basically our max height for all accessory structures in the City of Beaver Creek. so we feel like the request two was not met and whether the spirit intent of the code was observed in substantial dust just by done granted done by granting the variance the request one know the intent of the code is to maintain openness and space between houses structures that kind of thing you know given the the size of his lot the distance between houses and the fact that his backyard is so small we do feel like substantial justice would be done in granting his variance request in this situation like i said He was previously approved for a detached garage that met our, it was issued a permit for a detached garage that met all requirements. He moved away from that and wants to build this structure in lieu of that, which is requiring the variance. But we do feel like substantial justice would be done by granting the variance for criterion one. However, on the second request, the height request, The applicant, again, does have the ability to construct a compliant building, something that meets the height requirements. He does not actually need additional two feet. It's just his desire to have a taller structure than what's allowed. There's nothing unique about the property, in my opinion, that would justify granting the variance. Again, it's simply his desire to build a structure that exceeds the height requirements. Um, so we do not feel that the intent of the code would be met or substantial justice done by granting the height variance. And therefore we find that, uh, that criterion is not met. So basically when you bake it down, basically we recommend approval of the first variance requests and we recommend denial of the second variance request for height. Great.

Any questions for Matt?

You mentioned that the applicant had previously applied for a permit for the detached garage. How are the requirements for that different from this application for a shed?

So we do allow garages to be located in the side yard, and they're allowed to be as close as the primary structure. They can't be in the required front yard setback, but they can be in the side yard. But we do not allow other accessory structures like sheds to be located in the side yard. But we do make that allowance. It's common to have a house and then a garage at the side. We do allow for that. But as far as sheds, sheds have to be located or other accessory buildings have to be located to the rear of the primary structure. And so since he basically changed from wanting to build a garage to wanting to build a smaller, I think it's smaller, detached building, basically it triggered that need for a variance.

Back to your report for a moment on Section 3, whether or not the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered. or whether adjoining properties would suffer any substantial detriment as a result of the variance. You indicated that the criteria was met, that that factor is satisfied. Okay. Is that both with respect to the location as well as the height? Yes, it is. Yes. Okay.

Any other questions for Matt?

Can we see the picture again?

Oops.

which picture you want with which picture you wanting to look at this one here so you can see basically his property falls falls to the east and so from from this point to the peak would be about 19 1⁄2 feet. And then as you come this way, it actually gets... You can actually see, even on his detached structure, kind of the implications of the slope a little bit.

How tall is the peak on the garage?

On his house? Yeah. That I do not know. On the garage there. I do not know.

I would guess... You could hold off on that until you're sworn. Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, if that's, you know, if that door height is seven to eight feet, I mean, it would be somewhere close to 16 feet, would be my guess.

Thank you. Any other questions for Matt?

So the request is to build the new one to the right of the garage thing? Right here.

Basically right here in this grass area.

Okay, okay. I was confused by this image. All right, thank you.

Let me, basically... right here, right off his existing sheds here, right off that pavement is where he's proposing to locate it.

Anything else? Thank you, Matt. Let me open the public hearing and ask the applicant to step forward. Public hearing is open.

Hi, Sean Barrett. living at 2411 Lance Road, Beaver Creek, Ohio, affirm that the testimony that I am about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the city of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Funk. And good evening to the members of the board, Beaver Creek Zoning Commission, my spouse, neighbors and, of course, Beaver Creek residents. I want to thank you for your time for consideration of this variant. My wife Patty and I have lived in the Beaver Creek residence since 1988, not 1998. So the first question, no, we did not know that the variance was wrong or that the shed was wrong. As a matter of fact, there used to be an American elm between two trees behind the shed. That elm tree has died. I've taken it down. And we were told our property ran between the elm and another tree. I'll get to that in a second. We've lived in the Beaver Creek area since 1988. It is our home. We have witnessed the growth and fully understand the city's leadership's desire to match growth in neighborhood aesthetics. We are asking to build a structure for storage that will enhance the appearance of our home and blend in with those of our neighbors. We are asking to construct a structure with a loft. so that we can move lawn and garden equipment, excessive garage and attic storage, and infrequently used seasonal items to a secure area where climbing a ladder is not a requirement as we choose to age in place. Some facts. Justification for the various are explained in the submittal documents, which I don't think you had the opportunity to see all of them on your pictures and everything else. So let me summarize for you. The property was mismeasured at the time of construction. Greene County rules are you go from center line of roadway and 40 feet forward from the back of the property line. The builder measured my house, Mr. Heinrichson's house, 26 feet forward, the right of way. So both of our houses are too close to the property line. That picture is not in there. You can see where I actually mow. Number two, placement behind the main structure does not give us an area feasibility. Mr. Matt, if I may, said the same thing earlier. The existing shed is not within the property boundary and is dilapidated. Both you saw from pictures and he confirmed. attempts to purchase the vacant lot acreage had been unsuccessful. At one time, there were three of us trying to buy it. The builder increased the price by 10%. So we backed off. One other time, we tried to buy it. He decided he didn't want to sell it. The owner, Michael Sparks, who I actually spoke with this evening prior to coming here, said he has no objection to both the location and the height He owns the land. Mr. Sparks is both our neighbor and our friend. The proposed location does not impact drainage, utilities, block views of neighboring structures, or impede any right-of-ways. Again, Matt pointed that out. The structure is for lawn and garden equipment, not for heavy vehicles. The reason we had a garage initially is we were told we had to. In 19, in 2023, we put in an application. When we got to the final stages, the quote was $120,000, and we decided that was a little extreme. $40,000 of that was basically to tear up the driveway and put in a new driveway. Unfortunately, 2024, I had a job change, not by design, and so therefore, We reapplied at the end of last year, and now applying for a variance that I met with Matt. The design, including height, does not differ from existing neighbors. I have neighbors with barns, whole barns, exterior structures, some of them, granted, were existing before we moved in, and therefore would have been grandfathered, and the fact that the house was, the property was originally owned by the former mayor of Beaver Creek, Harley Coon, is irrelevant in this case. But that was a fact back in 1987 when his house was built. So what I have done, I'm going to be brief. I do not have 25 slides. This is a picture of our house and you might notice this was the day we had the wonderful snowstorm and I literally walked around the house so I couldn't have any footprints. The shed would be approximately, does it point? The shed would be to this side, and given the depression, as Matt pointed out, the height of the shed, even at 18 and a half feet as requested, would not be as high as the structure of the garage. And the house itself is higher than the garage by approximately two feet. We are working with Weaver Barnes down in the Springboro area. And this is the type of shed structure that we have proposed. So it is 20 by 24. We're doing the maximum size we possibly could. We're asking for a loft so they can put a full stairway in the back. Thereby, we can climb stairs as opposed to climbing ladders. And if you're over the age of 55 or have parents still existing, you're lucky. You understand that. This is a view if you were standing at the base of the shed looking over the driveway out towards Lance Road. And you can see, I can barely see over the driveway, and I'm over six foot. So obviously it is a depression of somewhat substantial size. I've seen this picture before. Did you steal it off mine?

I did, thank you.

You've seen this picture before, so this is the same thing. This is in the location of the shed, looking towards the garage. And obviously I must have been good at my materials because it was stolen. And finally, this is what I'm trying to overcome. What you see on the left is actually in the right in the garage. That is everything in the single garage bay that we are trying to move out of that garage so we can put a car in there. In addition to that, I am a cyclist. I'm actually the group lead for the Air Force cycling team. And above this garage, I am storing the fork mount assemblies that are 48 by 16 that we use to transport bikes across the United States for a recruiting ride that we do called the rag drive, which actually leaves in two weeks. So I have things that have to be moved seasonally. Christmas items, Easter, those are items we want to get out of the garage, you can see by the colors, and into a shed to be able to put cars in. So to summarize, placement locations to the side, there is no backyard. Spaces for storage and lawn and garden equipment, not for vehicles. If a garage can be put in, assuming it has to be concrete, or we can just call this a garage, But I would like to have a structure of this size at all possible, and I need to get with you and find out what the differences would be. It replaces dilapidated eyesore, so it's an enhancement to the neighborhood, not a distraction. We picked a barn-type structure so it would be aesthetically pleasing. There are, within a quarter mile of my house, three barns, actually four barns, including a farm just down the hill. So it's consisting of the surrounding neighborhood structures, and it should enhance the property value. I was told in public speaking, you should be bold, be brief, and be gone. So I've tried to do those three. May I have questions?

Any questions for the applicant? No questions for the applicant. Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this case? Please step forward and read the little notice on the upper left-hand corner of the podium. Thank you.

I'm Ronald Heinrichsen, and I affirm that the testimony that I am about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you.

I live at 2439 Lance Road, which is just to the west of the lot that Sean and Patty live. My house actually sits above their house maybe 15 feet or more. And when I look over at their house, I know that I'm not going to be able to see that structure at all, even at 19 feet because of the way their land slopes off to the east. I don't think it's ever going to be above the level of their house. So I'm in support of both the location and the height of the structure without any objections at all. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in the public hearing? Sure.

Good evening.

My name is Philip Frederick. My address is 1645 Beaver Valley Road, and I affirm that the testimony that I'm about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you.

My address again is 1645 Beaver Valley, so I am due east downhill from their property. When I look up the hill, basically I can see a little portion of that shed, so the effects at least from our perspective are minimal. In regards to height, I think because of the way the land slopes towards the house next to them, gives the appearance from that side that it's very very tall and I think if anything that could be mitigated by maybe some shrubbery or something to that effect to offset that but there's enough ground cover and trees on that side of the neighboring property that I don't believe that they're going to be affected by it either. I haven't got a chance to talk to them. I put a word out to them to get some input, but haven't been able to make that contact. As far as the other neighbors that are on the same side, same easterly side on Beaver Valley, we're not going to be affected by that in any way, shape, or form. Front side, it'll look a little bit nicer. That would help out. But I think that's all I have, and I hope you'll approve it. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Step forward. I'll ask Councilor, you're already sworn.

Okay. I'm their neighbor.

I live at 2369 Lens Road and right across them.

These people I know from the previous owner because he served at the Air Force Base Colonel Kretz with Mr. Barrett. And we have no objection. We support this. There is nothing except the cornfields and trees. It doesn't obstruct any view or anything. And just to emphasize this young-looking, lovely couple were living in Bureau Creek before I was born. So for them to have this privilege, I think we should just support this decision. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to public hearing?

I, Patty Barrett, affirm that the testimony that I'm about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. I just wanted to say that we have a ranch. We are on a slab, so there's no basement. And I know hobbies are not considered, but storage is. And I really wanted the steps because I have bad knees. I'm going to be having totals and everything done. And so just to have a step to walk up, that was part of it. And I have to be careful. I had two rotator cuffs, one in each shoulder. And I have a very good friend who's a PT. But anyway, I'm sure if she were here, she would approve also. Steps are going to be good for me as we age in place. But if you can't do it, you can't do it. And I understand. As a former nurse in the operating room, please do it. Please consider everything. It would help me. I do go to the bike trails. I do walk as much as I can. I do run. But steps are really hard, because we have one sunken step into the living room. So that, to me, is part of my health and my routine. So if you would consider that, that'd be great. Maybe that doesn't matter to anyone, but it matters to me. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak at the public hearing? Any other questions for Matt? If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Mr. Essman, I'd like to put on record that we did receive two emails and that the Board of Zoning Appeal members did receive both of those.

Thank you very much. And those are in the record. Board, what's your feelings? What's your thoughts?

looking in detail at the perspectives and looking at the staff report and the distance this structure is off of the roadway I don't have a problem with this variance request as proposed I think everybody's in agreement as to the the citing of it you're entitled to that staff agrees When I see the slope, the grade coming back another three or four feet, I don't know that two and a half feet is material and no one is gonna know the difference in perspective from the roadway. So I'm inclined to approve it.

Thank you. Anyone else?

We have one question. Maybe for Matt. The applicant had mentioned something about the potential of it being a garage. What is the potential of that?

So the applicant, I mean, it's, if he's going to use the structure to store vehicles, which is what a garage is, then certainly, you know, he, he could have called it a garage and, and wouldn't have needed a variance for the location. Certainly, you know, this time around he decided to increase the height. And so therefore he would still need a variance for the height, but he certainly, if it would have been a garage, a structure to store vehicles, he certainly wouldn't have needed a variance for the location.

Thank you. Well, I've got you here, Matt. This proposal, though, is smaller than the proposed garage for which the variance was granted. Is that true?

I don't remember. Is it the same size?

The same footprint, but a different height.

This time he's just asking for an additional height and not calling it a garage. Gotcha. Thank you.

Anything else? One item of clarification. The applicant, did you say it's an 18-foot tall? I thought you said 18, and Matt, you had 19?

Okay, thank you.

I can clarify that.

Let me find it. Basically, it was the height that he had given was from the height of the floor, top of the floor. And if you look in the, let me find out which. So if you look, basically S1 on the applicant's plan. It looks like this. You can see the height from the top of the floor to the peak was basically 18 feet 3 and 1-8 inches. And then basically, in relation to the adjacent grade, there was the width of the flooring and the structural supports and such from that.

Great, thank you very much.

If it was sitting on the ground, it would have that additional height above the floor.

OK, thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Roach, did you have a motion you'd like to make?

I would vote that the board approve case number V-26-3 as submitted.

There are two resolutions I think we should do separately, one for the location and one for the height.

Yes, sir. Let me begin by saying for this motion with respect to case V-26-3, I move to approve the variance with respect to siding location and setbacks.

And that they meet the criteria set forth in the zoning code.

Yes, sir. That they meet the criteria of 158.104.

Thank you. Further discussion? Well, second to the motion?

Second.

Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor? The clerk will read.

Mr. Roach?

Yes.

Ms. Best? Ms. Barhorst? Mr. Rader?

Yes, approve.

Mr. Essman?

I approve the variance request. Motion carries. Variances for the siting is granted. to accurately recite what is proposed here with respect to height it's not 18 and a half then right what is the correct height man 18.3 on the inside of the shed and 19 feet on the outside pick your poison pick your poison on that probably the outside is what matters the most 19 and a half

Okay. I move to approve the height variance requested by the applicant, case number V-26-3, at a height not to exceed 19.5 feet.

And that is based upon a review of the criteria in section?

158.104, yes, sir.

Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Any further discussion on that motion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. Madam?

Ms. Vest? Aye. Ms. Barhorst? Aye. Mr. Rader?

Approve.

Mr. Roach?

Approve.

Mr. Essman?

Approve. That being the case, both variances are approved. Is there any more business to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals? Hearing none, accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

And we don't need a second on that because we're adjourned. Thank you very much.