Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the uh. Being of the Board of zoning appeals for the city of Beaver Creek to order. Ms. Clark, can you please call the roll, Miss Barhorst. Mr. Rayer. Mr. Roach, Miss Vest. Mr. Essman, here. At this point I'd like to uh. have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? Is there a second? Second. All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye, I opposed nay. Approval of the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? I found one. And uh Paragraph 3 under vice chairman. In the second line, you have my name. I think it should be someone else's. Because I was selected as chairman, not vice chairman. OK. Any other corrections additions or deletions. If not, I'll accept a motion to accept a motion to approved the minutes as amended. Is there a second 2nd. All in favor, say I. And opposed no motion carries. Uh, we have a public hearing tonight. Miss Clark Can you kindly, uh, tell us what's going on. This is Kate Summer V 2025-2 on an application filed by Frank Rhine, PO Box 164 Alpha, Ohio 45301. The applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 158.043 E2 to allow an access platform to be constructed in the required side yard setback on the northeast side of the

building. The property is located at 2255 Whitey Marshall Drive further described as book 6, page 25, parcel 65 on the. Greene County Property Tax Atlas. Thank you. Staff prepared to give us a presentation. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, board members. So yeah, tonight we're talking about, um, various request 25-V25-2 at 2255 Whitey Marshall Drive, um, basically, it's, um, they're down there in Alpha. Um, it's a, an infill lot or uh not infield, it's a, it's a, it's a lot that doesn't have any frontage, um, you can see basically. Um And, and this here. These are parcels that are owned by the city and then basically why to Marshall drives right here in Daytonin roads right there. It's a lot that doesn't have any frontage, so it's kind of nonconforming from from the beginning. Um, here's a, a drive-by of what the parcel looks like. You can see the building in question, um. There in the back, you can actually see the meter on the side of the. Of the building And then all the, all the stuff in the front is, is city owned property up to the, that row of bushes, um, Mr. Ryan's property begins beyond those bushes. Um, so another unique thing about this parcel is basically it's in the, it's in the flood, flood zone. So, um, you can see, um, I've, I've got an arrow pointing to where his building is and so he's well within that flood zone there. Um, and again, You can see the, on this picture where the existing meter is, um, basically Mr. Ryan's been required to raise the meter by the, by the building department to raise

the meter, uh, a certain height above the flood level, uh, for safety reasons, and he's also being required by the building department to, uh, build a platform and stairs, uh, to access that, that meter. Um, so, uh, again, this is kind of a sketch of what Mr. Ryan was proposing, although he did indicate to me that, that the deck. Um, and this drawing, it kind of shows the deck going beyond the stairs, uh, that he may not necessarily be doing that. It may be just stopping right here, but, um, but in that drawing, it does show a little bit larger deck or platform. Um, this is another basically looking down on On the, the building and platform, uh, the building line is here and then this is the, the 5-foot platform that he has to build. Again, this indicates 20 ft. It may actually only, you know, be somewhere in here, uh, just enough to, uh, allow for stairs in a, in a small platform to access the um. The meter. Um, so when we're looking at our criteria, um. The, the first criterion with the property real yield a reasonable return or if there's a beneficial use and, and then this, you know, we, we felt like it. It does meet this criteria, uh, because basically denial of the variance request would essentially deny electric service to the building, which would significantly impact his, you know, the use of the building and a reasonable return because, you know, if you don't, if you don't have the ability to obtain electricity, it certainly limits your ability for uses in that. Um, the next one is, is the variant substantial? Uh, we do think that it is substantial, um, because it is, uh, the building encroaches. 12 ft into the side yard setback and the platform would encroach an additional 5 ft. So it's, uh, so it leaves only 8 ft to the property line, but At the same

time, uh, staff feels like the, you know, the, the adjoining property to that east side is, is property that's owned by the city. Uh, that's currently not being used by anything and, you know, the, the fact that Um You know, he wouldn't be able to to get a return on that a reasonable return on property, uh, if, if the variance is not granted, um, You know, he doesn't meet that, but we feel like, you know, we, it's still kind of warranted. Uh, the next one is the essential character of, is the essential character of the neighborhood gonna be altered. Uh, we don't believe it is. I mean, that building's been there. For a number of years, um, so I mean the really the, the only thing that's being added is a small platform for an elec so the building can get electric service so we don't feel like that is, is a negative. So we, we feel like he met that criterion. The next one is whether the, the advance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. Obviously, we don't, we don't think it, it would, um, if anything, in the event of a fire or something, it would allow better access to The meter if if necessary. Uh, the next one, If the property was purchased, uh, with prior knowledge of the zoning restrictions, um, you know, Mr. Ryan, uh, basically didn't even know that this was an issue until he went to get the electric service, uh, to the building and, and found out from the Greene County building regulation that, you know, the, the meter would have to be, you know, well above the ground and that he would also be required to have a platform. Um And uh so, and then the next one is, uh, could the property owner's predicament be alleviated through, and some other method. We don't think that there really isn't no other alternative. I mean, it's got to be that high, the, the service, you know, the AES kind of dictates where the service is going to be on the building. And, uh, so he's, he's kind of limited in his options. And then in the last one is whether the spirit intent of the, of

the code, um, would be observed in substantial justice done while it doesn't necessarily meet the spirit and intent of the code. We I certainly believe that there is substantial justice in granting the variants, uh, because otherwise, you know, Mr. Ryan would be left without electric service in the building. So, uh, based upon our analysis of the criteria, uh, staff recommends approval of the variance request. Thank you, Mr. Funk. The applicant here? Yes sir. Would you like to address this body? First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for coming down here just for So me, I know it's a busy day, um, the building has had electricity. I'm Frank Ryan. I'm the owner of the property. Thank you. Uh, the building has had electricity since the day it was built back in the late 70s, but Mr. Marshall took the electricity from his house. I ran it underground to the building. Um Um, so when. Neil passed away. The property was split. But the electric still fed my building. So, um, And I just I can still keep paying my neighbor. Half his electric bill, but I, I'd rather just have my own meter. I paid for a lot of his heat this winter. Um But uh it's only right that it should have its own electric source, um, seeing as I don't own both the properties. But I think Neil did a lot of that stuff back then. I don't know. Kind of inherited this. Thank you. Anything else? Uh, nothing more to add, just the, the one drawing that showed the top of the stairs. I don't believe there's gonna be any decking. To, to the right of that, and I believe that was 20 ft long minus the 12 ft of run. So it's about a 5 ft by 8 ft platform. The top of the stairs and right. We're trying to put the stairs so they don't block that window.

The, the first story window. And so the stairs will go up and go right onto that platform. There will not be any. Uh, decking to the right. Of the top of the stairs. So it'll be substantially smaller. It'll be 5' by 8 ft probably. That the requirement is to have it be 5 ft out. Um, and I don't know why, I guess to be able to work on the meter and what have you. Um I don't have anything else to add. Thank you then. OK. At this point I'd like to open the public hearing. If anyone is interested in speaking, please approach the podium. Uh, there is a 3 minute time limit. Um, and as you approach the podium, there is something to the upper left, I think it is. We'd like you to read. Sure, my name is Martin Miller, um, uh Yeah, I'm about to give testimony before the board of zoning appeals. Uh, it's the truth to the best of my knowledge. Uh, I live at 843 Stewart Drive, um, my property, uh, is kind of almost adjacent to this uh property. Um, I'm an opposition of it for, for obvious reasons, um, to deny electric to the building would deny it to be in operation, which is Really, um, I think it's just a case of the cart before the horse, uh, I'd really like to talk about how many times a building that flooded. It's been 4 ft underwater or more. Um, at least 8 times in the last 30 years I've had photographs I've documented over the years, uh, there's environmental concerns with the runoff that comes from that. Uh, most recently, the current property owner is just dump some debris in the back that is now since it's flooded, that debris is now settled along the shoreline along everybody's property that surrounds the floodwaters, um, so, so that's kind of a mess right now, um. We've, uh, kind of tolerated Neil being there

in the past because he's almost been like family, uh, but it's really been, uh, I think the only reason that garage was existed is because the city was there and you know. No, that's that sound. Since the cities vacated that, that area, um, they, they made promises to us when they asked for the current building to be built, um, that that would be turned into green space, it would not be used anymore, um, therefore, it really didn't have any sense to, to be an operating business, especially after Neil's passing, um, when Mr. Ryan moved in, we were on the impression that it was going to be used for just his own personal use for his own car collection, but, uh, since it's now full operation as an automotive shop, it's, uh, it's wholly. appropriate in its location. It's a wildlife corridor there. It's a water, it's on the edge of the wetlands, so when it floods there, um, you know, it only recently got hooked up to a sewer. There's been a well there with just run off there it's just the worst place for an automotive business, let alone any business because of the flooding. I'm concerned about the foundation being undermined. It recently had about 6 trees that surrounded have been cut down, so in the future, the eroding, uh, root structure that is going to further undermine the foundation. There is additional, uh, erosion from, uh, improper gutter placement, um, drainage and, uh, we're undermined the back of the building that I, I, uh, observed before, uh, before Neil had moved out. So, uh, there's lots of concerns that come before this power, power going to the building is the least of, of, of one of them. uh, we weren't quite sure how legal that power connection was. Um, and then, of course, you know, it's flooded with that power connected to it, you know, so power or not, it's still is gonna flood. It's flooded right now as we speak. So I, I've had a, uh, a letter that I sent as well, uh, addressing some more concerns. Um, you know, there's definitely noise concerns as well, uh, been running a generators, the hours of operation are very unreasonable. Uh, it's just inappropriate just right in our neighborhood.

It's a little, it's a little, uh, paradise right there and, and not with this building there. And it, it's just, enough is enough. That's really why we're here tonight to say enough is enough with this building. So I, I'll conclude with that. Thank you. Thank you. We do have a copy of the email that you sent. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak before the board of zoning appeals. Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. Ladies and gentlemen of the board, do you have any questions or comments for either of the applicant or the staff. Hearing none? I have one, Mr. Funk, can you show us where the easement accesses, please. Sure. So basically, Get this plan to work. Basically it's right along this edge. The city owns this triangle out here. OK. So basically there's, I think it's There's an easement that goes. From his property out to the road on that side. So these went silver top of city property. Yes, yeah, the city granted granted an easement for that, for access to that building. Um I don't know, was it after you purchased there or was it before, do you know? When I purchased the product, there had never been. easement on there, I think the attorney. Whoever handles the sale had an yeah, it's been within the last few years there was an easement put in for access to that building. OK, and also, can you delineate where the, I guess the whole building has side yards on all four sides. Yeah, there's no frontage. The building actually has no road frontage, so, you know, basically, it has 4 side yards so it has no rear yard, no front yard, and, and the zoning code for an eye, it's an eye zoning district. I should have clarified that earlier. It's an

eye zoning zoning district and an eye zoning district. It's a 20 ft side yard setback, so he has to be 20 ft from all sides, and of course, you know, it's a, it's a non forming, building that's been there for years and years, so, um, which, you know. Contributes to, you know, the need for a variance, but, um, but yeah, it is, does have actually 4 side yards. Thank you, Mr. Funk. Anyone have anyone else have anything for Mr. Fung? Um, let me just Straighten something out here for my own benefit. Um Because we have a few new members, why don't you briefly add to the record here nonconforming use versus what we do in a variants. OK, so a nonconforming uses is, it's a legal nonconforming use, that means that it doesn't conform with our current code. But it's, it's already there, it's already been there. So it's, it's, it's allowed to exist, um, in that state, um, and so the variant, what the, so the building is allowed to be there because it, it is, it's non-conforming. It doesn't meet our current codes, but it is allowed to be there. So the variants, um, because it's encroaching into that side yard setback. It's allowed to, you know, the variances to basically allow a further encroachment into that side yard. So would, would it be a true statement that a nonconforming use is generally going to be A situation when a zoning code is implemented or changed around that property. So that it's existing use as it was known to the owner would not conform, but they were playing by the rules when they got it. Yes, OK. Um the grandfathered often used. Right. So, um, Do you know roughly how long that building has existed on that property? Uh, no, I don't. Um Mr. Ryan, would you happen to know roughly how long it's existed right outside the

side door and it has uh 1980. Written in the concrete. I'm not sure how old it is, but. I'm guessing it's at least 45 years old. OK. Since we are talking about nonconforming uses I thought it would also be helpful to talk about the difference between a uh use variants and an area variants. I know we've had a a citizen comments about the use of the property that is not at issue here. The only issue is an area variance as to whether there should be a setback or not. The property is currently allowed under the zoning code to operate as the business it is, you guys don't have jurisdiction to address that particular issue. The only issue is whether a variance is required as an area variance for that. setback requirement. Yeah, that's a very good point. Um, so it would be a true statement just to state the obvious that in an I-1 district, The the the current uh. Use of that building would be consistent with the uses under I1. Yeah, and the, the, the, the, the occupant for the building has a, has a zoning permit for that. Uh, er TMD use compliance for that business, yes. OK So that the use of the building is not in question. And I guess only because it was raised earlier. Are you aware of any flooding on the As to the building itself, not to the parcel, but as to the building. I am not aware of any current play. Obviously, it's in the, in the flood zone. So I mean, obviously the risk of flooding uh is there, um, I mean, if you'd go back, it looked to me like the building was outside of the flood zone, but it's in that blue. So the, the, the red is actually the flood way and then the blue is actually the blue can is actually in the flood zone as well. Um, it's, it's the percentage of risk of flood. So, um, but yeah, so, and that, that area, I mean, the, the field behind him does, I mean, they're in heavy rains, you know, big storm events. I mean that area does flood,

hence the requirement from the building department to raise the meter. Off the ground, you know, to the level that it is to get it above that. That flood level, so. Um That necessitates the need for the variants. OK, thank you, sir. That's all I have. All right. Anyone else have anything? If not as their motion to either approve or deny the variants. Motion to approve the variants. Um Is that all I need to say? I'm one of those new people that we were just talking about. I, I, I would second the motion to approve the application in case V-25-2. Uh, and why are we approving that? Uh, because it satisfies all of the requirements set forth under 158.043. You concur with the seconds. Yes, I concur 2. 2nd to the 2nd. I have emotion in a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion? If not Madam Secretary, will you call the roll? Mr. Rayer Yes. Mr. Roach, Miss Vest. Ms. Barhorst, Mr. Essman. There being no further business, uh, I'll ask counselor, do we adjourn this meeting and go into our training session or do we just proceed forward? Yes, should adjourn this and then it then start a work session. Great. I have a motion to adjourn since we have no further business. lived. All right, all in favor,

say I oppose nay, we are adjourned.