City Council - Regular Meeting

Other discussion? Thank you for the advice. Contrary case? Who is in favor? Who is against? The motion is approved. The case will be the same. We have another case, Madam Secretary. Mr. Giugioni, please.

This is case number W26-5, relating to a question presented by Hope Joel Thompson, 1199, Wallaby Drive, Beaver Creek, Ohio, 45-400-832, which requires an admission to Chapter 158,621-4 of the Beaver Creek City Zoning Code to allow the construction of a swimming pool in the front courtyard of a R1A district. The property is located in the northwest corner of Wallaby Drive, further described as Book 5, Page 5, Particle 229 of the Fiscal Atlantis of the County of Greve.

Staff, would you like to make a presentation? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. So, this evening we examine the case of derogation 25 for 1,199 of Wallaby Drive. Fundamentally Wallaby Drive is right here behind the corner, not too far. Wallaby Drive is a kind of corner lotto, but the peculiarity is that it faces Wallaby Drive from both sides. This is the house of requirements.

So, again, this is the house of the needy. The image is rotated sideways, so the north is to your left. This is the house of the needy, this white line is the edge of the property, so the house is pushed all the way north, compared to their property.

In the next slide you can see the house.

This line here is the front edge of the property. This is an image of the front side of Wallaby, which runs north and south. They already have an existing privacy area around this side of the house and the pool will be located right behind this area. This is a view from the inside, from the curve, or rather it is not really an intersection, even if in reality ... The pool will be located here behind the privacy area, this is a view from south to north, this is their garage and the pool will be along the garage. So, observing our criteria for a derogation, basically, if the property is in question, it could produce a reasonable return or if there is a beneficial use of the property without a derogation. In essence, in our opinion, denying the derogation would not deprive the claimant of a reasonable return, nor would it prohibit a beneficial use of the property.

Therefore, according to these criteria, we did not consider that such a criterion was satisfactory, because we believe that they could obtain a reasonable return.

If the delivery is substantial, the proposed pool will be located 28 feet in the front courtyard on the south side of the house. But the position of the pool compared to the property is a rather large property. and the pool will be located at about 80-85 feet, about 24-26 meters from the front line to the south and here is another representation, this is the road to the south so the pool will be just over 85 feet, about 26 meters from that road and then from here this invasion of about 28 feet, about 8.5 meters on this side of the pool So we thought that, given the dimensions of the lot, the position and the proximity of the house on the ground. But as for the pool itself and its position, we did not think that the request was substantial, given the dimensions of the lot, which is almost half acro. and so we thought that in that case the criterion was satisfied. If the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered, again, this pool will be surrounded by a wooden roof existing of six feet, about 1.8 meters. The roof will practically obscure any visibility from the road. And here again the two images of the roof. So the roof is already there. It will be practically here on this end of the roof, near the garage, behind the roof. therefore once again we do not believe that the essential character of the neighborhood will be substantially altered or that someone will suffer a damage means it will not even necessarily be the number four criteria if the variant would have a negative impact on the delivery of government services we absolutely believe that this would have a negative impact on number 5 if the owner was aware of the requirements of the code at the time of the purchase of the property they bought the property in 2020 at that time practically all our codes were accessible online the staff is always available although we cannot say for sure they certainly had the possibility to know the code at the time of the purchase of the property so we did not think that this point was necessary number 6 if the owner's situation could be effectively resolved with a different method from the variant the house of the demand is as I have already said 16 feet from the northern border of the property the only other position to place the pool is directly behind the house on the west side however in that area there are underground air services including an airline that feeds the neighbor's house there is also a hut in the back obviously the hut could be moved so it is not our main concern but the utilities should all be relocated with an impact on the neighbors regarding the electrical service here is another representation this is the line that goes towards the neighbor's house this is the underground line that enters their house there is a hut located here Considering all the factors of the case, the dimensions of the lot, the electric lines, the hut and the position of the house, we did not consider it feasible to place it on the back. Finally, if the spirit and intent of the zoning requisite would be respected and if substantial justice would be done, The spirit and intent of the code are to preserve the character of the neighborhood, the safety, the aesthetics and guarantee open and coherent views of the urban landscape. The plot of the requirer is a little more than half acro. The house is located disproportionately towards the north side of the property. The pool will be surrounded by over 80 feet of wallaby and almost 60 feet on the other side of wallaby. It is quite distant from nearby properties. Moreover, being behind a review for the existing privacy, we believe that the spirit of the code is respected and that granting the request for a derogation is a choice. In the whole, the staff recommends the approval of this request for a derogation to allow the pool to extend for 28 feet in the front courtyard of the request. I now open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here who would like to talk about this case? Could you read the sign in the upper left, please?

I, Jill Thompson, president of the 1909 Wallaby Drive, state that the testimony I am about to give in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the city of Beaver Creek is the pure truth to the best of my acquaintances.

First of all, I would like to thank

It was a very well done job and most of the research that was presented I will have in front of me, but I do not want to be repetitive with information that you already have. You also have images in front of you in those posters that provide further details on how our property would appear with the pool installed. There is also an image generated by artificial intelligence for you.

We put it verbatim that we received a request document.

After the reports of Ohio 811 in our garden, we noticed the presence of lines of land services in addition to electric and air lines for safety reasons. We thought it appropriate to find an alternative position to build the swimming pool. Also considering the preferences of the neighbors, the aesthetics and the dimensions of our property, the side courtyard seemed more suitable, where we do not have lines, services to move. We have made the measurements, taken photos and there is nothing on the side of the garden that prevents us from installing the pool safely. Everything is located in the recinted area. That's why we want to move everything in the side courtyard, leaving ample free space around the sides of the property. Our closest neighbors are 30 feet away from that recintation and have provided a letter in which they declare that they have no problems with the construction of the pool.

in that side area and they are our closest neighbors.

The front road is 80 miles away and then 90 miles on the side road of Guido. So we believe that there is a lot of space and the inspection would block any visual from the road or any activity involved. and we also have some neighbors who have surprised us I ask you to read the statement in the upper left corner please the testimony I am about to give is according to my best knowledge

We have the ownership of Retro d'Oro. In fact, we live on Blue Drive, but we have no objection to this change. I think it fits well with their lotto, the way it is located. It looks more like a side courtyard than a front courtyard. So, I don't think at all that they live inside. So, we support it.

Excuse me, the acoustics here is not very good. What is the name and address again, please?

James Byrd, BYRD. We have a...

The property behind is 1300 Wallaby... or Arnica. 1300 Arnica. Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the public audience?

Someone in general. Last chance. I want to close the public hearing.

Some discussion on the question.

We will probably ask the secretary if we have any contributions.

We received the letter that has just been presented. It comes from 1199 Wallaby Drive and I support the request. Even the members have just received a discussion.

I think the staff has accurately summarized the state of the question and the conditions of the property and we will have to follow the recommendation. Can I have a motion to follow the recommendation? Propongo l'approvazione del caso numero V26-5, come raccomandato dallo staff.

Ripengo specificamente che la sezione 158.172 H5MPS è stata soddisfatta.

C'è un seconda quella mozione? La mozione è seconda. Altre discussioni? Non essendoce nel signora segretaria, può chiamare la signora addetta, può fare l'appello.

Signor Rida. Signora Vesta. Signora Barros. Signor Isna.

Presente. There are other questions to submit to the building appeal council in this seat. As owner of a pool, I felt the duty to do the right thing and have You, Melissa, received an input from James Bard at 1300, from Arnica.