Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

go out and look at it. It was just going to be a sidewalk, but then they had that and it's coming all the way down to the city sidewalk that's out there. I think it was. Yeah.

Which I didn't think it was that large. can't make them. But it does encroach a little bit on his neighbors or Yep. Okay. The April 8th, 2026 meeting of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Bowling Green is now in session. Will the secretary please call the role? Um Jerry Anderson here. Jeff Crawford here. Tim Emer here. Bob Mccumber here. Rod Noble. David Fagger here. Jay Sachman here.

All right. Our first order of business is approval of the minutes from the March 11th, 2026 meeting of the ZBA as previously circulated. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the minutes as circulated? So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Fluger, seconded by Mr. Obery. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say nay. Nay. My mistake. Sorry.

Uh the minutes are approved as circulated. Okay. This is the ZBA. Uh, in order for the board to determine whether strict application of the code would create a practical difficulties sufficient enough to warrant the granting of a variance, the applicant in his or her application and in testimony this evening must present credible evidence appropriately addressing the criteria included in section 1507 of the zoning code that may be relevant to their case. The board will consider those same criteria in making its determination. All applicants have acknowledged that they have reviewed those criteria. Appeals of the decisions by the board may be made to the Wood County Court of Common, please. All right. The way it's going to go is I'm going to read the variance request. The city planning director will then give an overview of the request in the applicable law. Then the applicant will be invited to present credible evidence citing reasons why the strict application of the zoning code will result in practical difficulties as previously explained. That'll be followed by questions from the board and that will be followed by testimony from any persons withstanding wishing to support or oppose the request with statements of fact as previously explained. If you have not already, please sign in at the book located at the door and at the conclusion of uh the hearing you're present for, you are free to leave. Uh at this time, if you plan to or think you may choose to testify in any of the cases before the board this evening, please stand and raise your right hand. I do solemnly swear to that the testimony I give in these matters will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you. All right. Our first agenda item, Emmanuel Tempbo, 800 Langford Drive has requested a variance to allow the construction of an 8 1/2 ft by 27 ft driveway extension, a widening, which is 4 1/2 ft wider than the maximum width allowed based on the width of the 22 foot wide garage to which it leads. All right, so this one's kind of a repeat of the one from last month. Um, they're actually very close to one another. Um, but just to give you just a little bit on this as he just read it, but their existing drive is 17 feet wide. The extension they're looking for is 9 and a half feet um in width. That would get you to 26 1/2 ft. You minus the width of the garage, which is 22 ft, which is where you get the 4 1/2 ft um variance request that we're seeing tonight. But the um off street parking um we're serving one unit or two unit dwellings. Um, a driveway may not exceed the width of 20 ft or the width of the garage to which it leads, whichever is greater. This is a sketch. Well, the sketch provided. Um, as you can see, the blue portion is going to the edge of the garage and then the green is the sidewalk that was coming down. The initial request um did not include that. That's why we had to come and get the variance. They have here that it is 8t wide. I measured it off at 9 and a half feet wide. Um, you'll see the picture um here coming up. This is an aerial view of the property. It's changed a little bit out there. This is the most up-to-date one that's on the auditor's website. So, this is the what is existing out there right now. Um, this permit was approved, but it was to have a driveway extension to the edge of the driveway and then the sidewalk was going to wrap around, which would have been administratively allowed. But when they came in for the permit, they um requested a change, which now then kicked it into the gear where we're in

where variance had to be requested. Obviously, as you can see, it is much wider than the driveway um or the the garage. This picture was before they did any work that's uh out there currently. And then here's just a couple of the glossery terms that we've read um many times. But that is the information for that one. Um we did not receive any letters or communications um for this one. Um an advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulation as required. A site notice was placed at the site. Uh the other notices required by the administrative code were posted in proper time and location and a letter was mailed first class mail uh to the tax mailing address of the owner and adjoining property owners. Therefore, all procedural requirements of this hearing have been met.

Thank you. Is the applicant here today? Yes, please. Would you like to approach the podium? Will you please uh state your name and address for the record? Uh, Emanuel Tempbo Andre Longford. And you confirm that you did take a oath to tell the truth this evening? Yes.

Okay. Just please explain to us your variance and why strict uh enforcement of the code would create an undue hardship. So, um we used to be the last house before they built all those uh new houses and parking wasn't an issue before, but after they built the new houses, uh the neighbors um in the new housing, they drive in um their work vans to park there. And also my neighbor to the left of me, they have two sons that drive. So, I own four cars and sometimes I have to do park them on the street. When my mother-in-law comes to uh babysit the kids, she usually parks in the driveway behind the two cars and she blocks off the the sidewalk and people don't like that.

Mhm. Yeah. So, basically, it sounds like it sounds like you're I mean, I think we can all empathize that like parking parking is a problem and stuff. And so basically you're saying that this uh having to switch cars is a hardship and it's creating a safety. Is there anything about safety that this would improve? Yeah, just uh that people don't have to go around the cars when uh uh they walking in the sidewalk. There've been complaints in the neighborhood chat saying if you could avoid parking where you can you're blocking off the sidewalk. It seems like pretty pretty straightforward request. Does anyone have any any questions for the applicant?

Hey man, you go by Eddie. Is that what I That's That's my mother. Hi, Eddie. I'm Jerry. Nice to see you. Looking at the picture up there. We're going to bring this down. We're going to bring it across the sidewalk and continue it down to the street. Is that right? No, no, no. Jeff, it's right there. Okay. Thank you. That's what I saw when I drove. Nice neighborhood, by the way. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? No. N okay. Does anyone else like to speak on the matter? Now we'll close the public comment. Time for discussion.

I don't have a problem with that. I think it's uh just like he said like what we did last month. Uh it's not unreasonable. It's not huge. And and parking in that area is getting to be a a lot of cars on the street and there's a lot of kids in that area. So, I think it should be approved. Yeah. No, I would tend to agree. To me, this variance isn't significant or change the character of the neighborhood at all. I don't have any any problems with it. Is there any any motions? I move. Second.

Motion by Mr. Sman, seconded by Mr. Crawford. Mr. Secretary, we call the role. Jerry Anderson, yes. Jeff Crawford, yes. Tim Emmer, yes. Bob Mccumber, yes. David Fleer, yes. Jay Sachman, yes. All right, your variance has been approved. Just check in with the planning department to pick up your permit.

All right, our second agenda item. Neil Ghart has requested a variance to allow the construction of a twounit dwelling which would encroach two feet into the 15t average front yard setback to the east corner lot setback variance would be from the front yard setback from Elm Street only and 10 ft into the 20ft rear yard setback to the west at 6244 street. This is two vacant parcels zoned UR University related residential.

Okay. And I did bring a copy of the uh full site plan because I know some of these images are going to be a little difficult to see. So if you want to see a full size, here are the fulls size ones here with me. But yes, Mr. Gearhart did has requested well two variances technically. Um one for the front yard setback and one for the rear yard uh setback. Um if we go to uh university oriented residential district um it says 20 foot minimum for a front yard setback but there is an asterisk there. Uh the asterisk means that when 50% or more of the frontage on one side of the street between two intersecting streets is uh improved with buildings that have front yards of greater or less depth than the required front yard in the UR district. No building shall project beyond the average front yard established. So what we did was we um looked at the adjacent properties and that's how we came up with the average front yard setback um which was 15 feet for the front yard there on Elm. Um but the rear yard has to remain it is a 20 foot uh setback for the rear. So that would that one does not change. This is a copy of the site plan um that I mentioned again. If you want to see copies of that that is right here. Um the so just to give you a little bit on this uh so for the 15 foot setback um they're 12 feet um but this but the rightway does not begin until one foot past the sidewalk. That's why we have the two feet instead of three feet. That's where that that difference comes from. This is an aerial image of the two parcels. It is a vacant uh two vacant parcels and there's two more images of it as the last two. All right. And I did write a letter to the zoning board um just to give some background on this and I'll read that to you now. Uh the prior house of this location was demolished in 2019 and the property which is two parcels has sat vacant since. This is a corner lot at the southwest corner of Elman Fourth

Street and is zoned UR University oriented residential district. On December 16th, 2024, a zoning permit was applied for to construct a two-unit dwelling exhibit A. City staff let Dave Wilson, applicant on behalf of the property owner, know that more information was needed. Upon receiving the information, it was discovered that a variance would be needed specifically for the front and rear setbacks. The first variance was requested on February 12th, 2025, which was exhibit B. Upon review, it was determined not to be the correct request as it was for parking off the alley, which was deemed allowable, and the request was pulled. After speaking with Mr. Wilson. He applied for the variance um being requested for our our April meeting. That being a variance request to allow the proposed house to be located 2 feet into the 15 front um 15t average front yard setback located on the east side of the property off Elm Street. Also to allow the proposed structure to be located 10 ft into the 20ft rear yard setback from the west property line. Both require requirements can be found in 150.35 University oriented district UR table 12 which is enclosed. And then lastly, I wanted to I wanted to let the board know and be aware that 624 Fourth Street also had a setback um related variance on August 9th, 1989. Um that is exhibit D which allowed the then existing structure to encroach into the average front yard setback which is labeled as exhibit C. We also received a communication um regarding this from David Mau. Um Mr. Mau wanted wanted this to be read that dear board members, I'm in receipt of your correspondence regarding Mr. Neil Gearhart's variance request for his property located at 624 Fourth Street Bowling Green. I own property across the street to the north of Mr. Gearhart's property. It is my opinion Mr. Gearhart's variance request should be granted. Corner lots have additional setback requirements as compared to regular lots making the site plan and

constructing constructing within those setbacks more challenging. As a result, Mr. Gearhart's request seems reasonable to me. I'm glad to see more quality housing starts in the city of Bowling Green. I hope the board will approve the variance request. Respectfully, David Mau. All right. Thank you. And I just want to make sure I read everything correctly. Um, and just to finish it out, an advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulation as required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the administrative code were posted in proper time and location. A letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owner and the joint property owners. Therefore, all procedural requirements for the hearing have been met.

All right. Thank you. Will the applicant uh please approach the podium? Will you please state your name and address for the record? Neil Gearhart, 502 Erie Court. And you can confirm that you did swear an oath to tell the truth this evening. I did. Thank you. Which is a which is a problem. Yeah. Yeah. Because guys, there's no hardship and I can apologize and we can all go home early cuz that's the request. I Yeah. Your next question is, is there a hardship? No, there's no hardship. I'm just trying to fill the lot and like Mau and these guys have all helped me out. It's tough to get a something decent on that lot.

So, you're saying there's no hardship whatsoever. I can't I can't create one. I just really didn't want to put up a twotory monster that has overwhelmed that area recently. And little Tikes toys that you see all over that neighborhood. Now, as it has encroached and moved, that neighborhood's changed, as you all know, that it's now more family. This option lets me go to two families. Mhm. Okay. I hear you. That's what it's all about. I guess basically like, so if we if we didn't let you build anything on this, would that

anything that would I can go back and do it right across the street, Dave Mau's tall bump teen kid unit. I can do that, but I don't want to. So, the hardship is you can't he can't fit what he wants on the property, right? I can't fit something that would accommodate two little families with little Tikes toys and not Yeah, that's all. So, you if we strictly went by that would it would lessen the economic value of of the parcel. Yeah, I don't know about that. Those kids pay pretty dear for those big ones. Does anyone have any questions from Mr. Gearhart? So, yeah. My my question was uh you're planning on doing trying to get families in there, not college. I want to have the option.

Option. Okay. Uh yeah, by all means, I want to not be stuck with a It's tough to present the six unit the six gang apartment buildings properly, but I wasn't looking for that. I'm confused. Neil, are you testifying on behalf of wanting to do this or are you testifying against allowing this?

I don't have a hardship. I can't claim hardship and that's what I have attested to. Um I can economically I assume if I did a six-man it might be better off, but it wouldn't do what I want to do. Well, my I myself think this would look nice in the neighborhood and and would improve the neighborhood. Uh trying to work with you here. Get I appreciate it. Yeah. So, I'm sorry.

Yeah. I mean, I'd rather look at uh some nice houses in that empty lot u and uh in that neighborhood. There is a like you said, there is a lot of houses uh and it looks like there's a lot of more families in in that area. Um, so yeah. Okay. Basically, um, well, does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Ghart? I I'm in agreement. It would look a lot better. But what there has to be a hardship for us to be able to prove it. But there has to be a practical difficult

a difficulty or reason for that. And I I agree. It would look a lot nicer than these big square boxes going up. But I'm not sure that's a hardship. I mean, I I wish there was a way. Truthfully, I should have done my homework. I didn't realize. No. Looking for hardship.

Well, he did answer all the questions. Uh, and you know, a response to those the criteria. I I agree with a lot of his answers on the criteria. It's not going to adversely affect anything. Uh it's going to improve the neighborhood. I I think it would look good on that lot myself. 50 years ago, I sat on your board and there's no hardship, guys. I'm sorry.

Yeah. You have to read the where it says criteria for granting a variance in it. The board must find that the strip application of the zoning code would create practical difficulties for the property owner. Can't do it. No matter what we want to hope and think. The unfortunate thing is I don't know that it meets that. Not that I'm against you. I'm for it because I like nicer houses going in where you can put a family in it, not a great big box that you that it's crammed with kids in there. Yeah, I I think Mr. Gearart's being a little bit modest, though. Also, I think there there are tangible hardships. Spell them out, please.

Yeah, I Well, I think one is economic. If we enforce the setbacks on this uh as the code states then we would we'd have to have a lot smaller of a footprint which would create you know it wouldn't be the highest and best use you wouldn't be getting as best return for yeah out of out of

so to me I think there there is a financial hardship and I guess okay so my analysis basically went like this the two feet into the 15 foot. To me, that's that's not significant or change the character. Uh 10 feet into the 20 foot rear setback. I'm not sure if that is significant, but there's other factors. Is it a safety issue? Uh and I don't think it is a safety issue based on setbacks and fire. It doesn't seem that it's a safety issue. So, is there other factors to consider? And I think this would be a great example of infilling which promotes density and is good has economic value not to mention the tax revenue and getting more economic output out of this parcel. Uh and we need housing basically at every level in this town. So that's pretty much my analysis of it.

That sounds great to me. I I agree 100% with everything said and I came in fully anticipated. Does that Does anyone have any more questions for Neil? No. A couple of quick ones. Neil, good to see you again. Uh you're facing Elm Street, so we're going to need new Elm Street addresses. That was in our packet as well. The garages face Elm Street. Yes, sir. And we have earlier information that said one thing we can't do is park in those driveways because it will cover the sidewalks. Right. Okay. So, we're together on that. I there's nothing more irritating than doing my walks around Bing Green and having to do that at You're on that. I got that. Where are your tenants going to park? In the garages.

In the garage. Okay. Very good. On the back side. This is the one that gives me a little bit of trouble. I'm not bothered by the two and a half up front at all. Especially given the the average frontage. Thank you for doing that to see what is over there already. The the back of your structure is going to be within 10 ft of the next property line. No, I see Dave Wilson saying no. Help me out. It's not 10 feet. We're supposed to have a 20 foot setback and you're allow you're asking to go with Yeah. Yeah. If you if you if you would testify, you got to come up to the podium. He swore. He did not stand up to swear either. Yeah. Come up and swear, man. Technically speaking,

will you state your name and address for the record? Name is David Wilson. uh live at 8272 Liberty High Road. Do you swear your testimony tonight will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Nothing but the truth. Yes. And what's what's your affiliation with the with the project? I have just helped them with their uh site development and then possible if it goes through I'll do the plans for the county building department. I'll prepare them for a building permit. So I've done stuff for for Mr. Gearhart before. Okay. So the question on the table was it would be 10 foot away from the from the setback. What what are we doing with that? Because your rear property line,

right? Well, and I and I looked at that when we went to prepare this, I knew we were consuming, you know, a portion of more of the than it was before, but based on based on building code and fire code, if we're at least 10 foot off and the other properties are at least 10 foot, we've got a total of 20 foot. So, we've got fire separation uh for the fire department, for the building department. We don't have to fire rate the the wall because we're 10t off the property line. So, by code, fire code, we're we're separated. Uh by zoning, obviously, you want 20 foot rear setback. Obviously, on a corner lot, like Mr. Mau said, it's weird with this corner. That's your back where if we put the house front, the back would be to the alley. So, it's just kind of how we orient it. Um the twotory uh would be we could go straight up twotory, but then then you got a second story for there again for fire safety. More people have to jump out of the second floor. Here you're on a ranch level. Uh it makes it safer. It's a nicer more aesthetics uh based on quality look of the the developing of the neighborhood. It just adds a little more value and aesthetics to the property to the neighborhood. So did I say enough? I didn't go too far.

Yeah. No, no, I think you could did a good job addressing the fire safety and basically safety in general with the ranch layout as opposed to the twotory as well. And and what you said too, even though he's being more of the more modest um there would in one way or another, there would be some sort of a hardship because he would spend more time and money to go two stories to develop, maintain, and that where the one ranch is a little easier to develop. So there's some sort of a financial hardship, shall we say? But in the end, it's betterment for the neighborhood, betterment for the community. I think it's a nicer look. So that's where that's why we kind of that's why I kind of went along with the idea instead of just putting twotory or whatever type thing. C

can I add something about corner lots? I wanted to bring these up. I know we see these a lot, but it makes it a little more difficult in these scenarios, and Mr. Wilson sort of mentioned this is that depending on how you orient the house, let's say um the side he's requesting the variance for calling it the rear yard, we could technically call that the sideyard if the home were to face the other street. So then technically that would only have to be 5t. So that's what's kind of tricky about uh corner lots and how you orient houses because it does have the two front yards. And then that results in one side yard which only has to be a minimum of 5t and then of course the rear yard which you already know has to be a minimum of 20 ft. So just want to kind of give you the education about corner lots and how they can be a little tricky

and and with the zoning permit and and we noted it on the plan. We we definitely let the tenants know they cannot park in the drive. they pull in the garage, but we had the ava a availability to put some parking on the alley side so any overflow could go on the parking on the side on the alley side. So we made sure we got enough so we weren't in any traffic flow or walking pattern flow or anything like that. Kind of developed and used the whole property uh prudently type thing. When you say that you had the adequate parking, what how many are you talking about trying to put in each one of those if I may ask? I'm sorry. How many people are you putting in each one of those units then? Well, it depends on if he goes with a family, right?

Or even if he goes with um even if we went with students, there's only so many bedrooms, so they could not overload. And technically with the garage, the two garages and the parking, we still had potential for up to eight parking, eight vehicles anyhow, type thing. We could handle eight eight vehicles anyhow off streetet parking anyhow. two in four in the garage, two on four on the side. Okay. I mean, we all know that college students don't use a garage except a constraint. I mean, that's the typical and they may they may just have ebikes, so they may have You're right. You're absolutely right. Um uh did I answer enough? I didn't want to overextend. Does anyone anyone else have any more questions for the applicants?

No. Okay, you guys are all set then. Okay. Thank you. Are there any more discussion points we'd like to make?

I will just uh comment that uh I I you know I've heard most of the rest of you talking about the aesthetic improvement with the town home rather than the twotory unit. I don't disagree with that, but I still think in in my mind this is a relatively close call. uh because uh I I am a bit concerned about uh having a requirement for a 20 foot setback and then uh nixing 10 feet of it, half of it. That to me is a pretty and one of the factors under what's a practical difficulty is a substantial variance to my mind. If you take off 10 feet off a 20 foot setback, that's a substantial variance. Uh so I I'm looking carefully at these seven factors that constitute a practical difficulty. I don't think uh unless somebody corrects me that we have to find an undue hardship. I don't think that's the language. I think it's practical difficulty and the property as Mr. Ghart testified because still has an economic use. Even if he didn't build the town homes, he could always do the twotory thing and be with and and be in compliance with the setback. So there is an economic use for the property. It doesn't make the property useless if he's not allowed to be in town homes. So with the intrusion into the setback, I add all that up in my mind and and I I come up thinking it's it's a pretty close call.

Could I speak again? Yeah, you can come up.

Sorry. And and I understand where you're coming from again, too. Um I definitely looked in the two or three block area there. Uh if you look at some of the existing other I gave some pictures to the the planning department there other neighborhood things that wouldn't be rear but the side a lot of some of the existing houses are within seven or eight foot of each other on some of the other houses in the two or three block neighborhood area. Some of these houses are within six or seven foot 8 foot of each other 10T of each other. Here we're 20 foot at least even though like like um Heather said it's the rear side yard orientation but we're further apart than a bunch of the other existing structures that are there which are 7 to 10 foot apart totally apart and here we're 20 foot apart or more. So just and I understand where you're coming from too but I I made sure when I tried to look at this that it wasn't doing anything anything crazy. I just figured hey we still got good setback for fire separation. But that's why I kind of went along and thought this is a good idea.

Okay. Thank you. And I and I I agree with you. It is it's it's a real close call for me, especially with the is it substantial? It's 50%. It's like it's it's right there. But with the mitigating fire factors and and I think there's too many positive reasons. And if you spin the lot, if you spin it, it only has to be five feet, right? Yeah. Council May, would you Yep. Would you like to Would you state your name and address for the record?

William Herald, 10:30 Conad Avenue. And I was sworn in. Um I wasn't planning on saying anything, but uh because of Mr. Ghart's incredible level of honesty, uh I think that prompts me to not counteract it. That would be terrible because I also was sworn in. But um add another layer if you will. First of all, in no way am I suggesting for you to vote one way or the other. As you know, I've been a regular fixture here for decades. And uh if after my time on council, somebody approached me and said, "Hey, would you like to be on the zoning board of appeals?" I would beg to be put on something else because your job is I think the the most challenging one. So this is a good example of that. Um what triggered me was uh Neil's uh uh saying there's no hardship and there's various levels of hardship. I'll leave it to you to figure out whether it's an appropriate level of hardship or not. But I can tell you as a a council member and somebody that's been on council quite a few years, uh we do as a community have what some could call a hardship. Now that's a committeewide one. It's not specific to this, but the hardship that we have is having diversity in our housing stock. It is a challenge for us and we're working on different avenues no pun intended at all uh and trying to address that and from my perspective uh this what what Mr. Ghart is trying to do would contribute to in you know it's one property but or one area but it would

help us with that diversity in the housing stock and uh so again from my perspective which isn't as as uh specific as yours but from my perspective this would be helping in a modest way to alleviate some of the communitywide hardship. And again, I know you have all sorts of things. Uh Bob brought up a really good point about trying to is is it uh it's a tough one in the sense of the the amount of of uh setback. Um, but I just wanted to add that perspective that if we're being uh if it's a stumbling block because of the use of the term hardship, uh, from my more global perspective, which may or may not be appropriate here, we we do have a hardship as a community and this would help solve it. So, thank you for your time and your service.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would uh like to make a public comment? Nope. Okay. Internal discussions. To me, to me, the the good just outweighs the the risk in in this instance. I agree. Are there any motions? I'd move that we approve the request as presented. And I'm going to second that. All right. Motion by Mr. Crawford, second by Mr. Anderson. Will the secretary please call the role? Uh, let's start with Bob McCumber.

Yes. David Fagger, yes. Jay Sachman, yes. Jerry Anderson, yep. Jeff Crawford, yes. Tim Emer, yes. All right, your variance has been approved. Just check in with the planning department to pick up your permit. And now we'll go into lobby visitation. Nobody for today. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn the meeting? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? I I All right. meetings.