Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have 7:00 make I'm going to call the meeting to order and enjoy move the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good evening everyone. [clears throat] Roll call. Mr. Wilker here. [snorts] Mr. McAdams here. Mr. Ford here. Mr. Kangro here. Mr. Jen here. Everyone is present. Everyone get a chance to read the minutes of last meeting?

Yes, sir. Yes. with any additions, corrections? No, I didn't have any. No. Do we have a motion to accept them? I'll make a motion to accept the minutes as recorded. I'll second it. We'll call. Mr. Wilker. Uh, abstain. Mr. McAdams. I. Mr. Ford. I. Mr. Kangro. I. Mr. Jen. I. Uh. Motion's passed. For future reference, if you missed a meeting, you can vote on the minutes. There may come a day that we may have three people here and one might miss the next meeting or that we might have replacement of members. So you can it's okay to abstain. Um but if we you don't have to but we if we need the vote you can. Okay. Gotcha.

Got you. [snorts] Good to know.

All right. That's ma'am. All right, I'll make a motion that we uh go into executive session uh pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 121.22G as follows. Number one, to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are subject of pending or intimate court actions pursuant to a high revised code section 121.22 G3.

Do I have a second? I second. Mr. Wulker I. Mr. McAdams I. Mr. Ford I. Mr. Kangro. I. Mr. Jen. All right, motion passes. We are in executive session, which means we go to executive session and return

We'd like to call this meeting back to order. And um I would like to make the statement that we're here to hear about the height variance only. We're not here for any other like Clatty Road. We're not here to bring up Clatty Road. We're here for the height variance of the building. So if you have comments on them on it, you you're more than welcome to make comments. All right. Is there anybody here? What? Let's head first. Did you want me to go first? Yep.

Yeah. Read the memorandum. Just to kind of recap um the case here, we're looking at a variance request of 6'3 in for a storage structure. Uh the maximum height for storage structures typically 20 ft per the code. Um the properties 720 Barge Salt Run Road is also accessible and at one point had an address off of Clatty. Um the parcel number is listed in here in a zone R1. Um the site's located here on the map. You can see the zoning of the site R1 and everything around it R1 or estate residential um where this little three-dimensional box is is approximately where that uh structure is located. This was the site plan. Um, you can see the building built in the middle and you can see the building plan on the left of the slide and the chariot that that was there on the right and it's chariot is 19 1/2 ft tall. This is the structure as you're looking at it. Uh, we looked at all these pictures from other areas. That's the chariot itself closer. Uh, we had some questions issues related to clatty that we talked about. I'll go come back to that in a minute. Um in the last meeting, the board wanted us, the staff to um look at the prior cases and the conditions of approval and um so I prepared a memo for the board. Um from the previous conditional use approvals associated with the property,

only one case which was case 9-18- was ever actually permitted for zoning permit and built. That was the only one and that was for a gazebo that is in the I think it's the playground area for the near the temple uh for the kids. All the other cases that were that did have conditions attached to them, the gazebo case did not, there was never a permit issued and the structure in question or addition in question was never built. And so therefore, those approvals and those conditions expired because they're only good for one year. They have to get a permit within that year if it doesn't happen. There were was a were court cases involved with the first couple cases, but at the end of the day when when those were all said and done, they didn't get them permitted. So, the conditions and everything expired because they were never built. Um, we did receive an attached letter from Mr. and I'm hope I'm pronouncing this correct or Mr. AJ Mun Munf, president of the Executive Council of the Hindu Society of Greater Cincinnati that reinforced the history and actions um that were that I just talked about and sets forth how the property owners intended to address the previous comments and recommendations by township staff in the last report from September. Um so I included that in your items that were I sent to you other than the me memo basically. And then With respect to the required modifications, actually I have this on here for people to see. With respect to the required modifications in the September 4th uh BCA staff report, the gate on Clatty Road did appear to be currently locked and closed when I visited it last, which was a couple days ago, I think. Um it's the area's been repaired. the missing loose dilapidated materials and sections and

vegetation's been removed, pruned and appears to be in good condition or it was at the time I was there. I have pictures if you want to see them. Um not sure that they're necessarily again relevant to the height of the structure, but they did address the items that were in the staff report from September. Um, and then I have pictures from the inspections uh that I did the other day on the 24th and um you can see those in reference to um how the chariot fits within the the building. Uh the applicant actually moved the chariot into the building. Uh it was something that we did talk about in a meeting that we had with the applicant representatives and um in short we basically told them that there is there's some risk in putting the chariot in the structure since the structure is not totally been approved. But at the same time, you know, the building is there and its original intent was to keep the chariot from being out in the weather. Um, and so when I went out there, what I did is I showed in the attachment of the memo the chariot picture from August 19th. So this is the chariot. It's August 19th. And then on November 24th, this is the picture of the chariot in the structure. And then in addition to that, I um I provided this letter that we received September 27th which talks a lot about the history of the prior cases um and so forth. Um,

I think that more or less summarizes everything that we have had since September to to go over. Um, do you have any questions for me at the moment? No, sir. I do. Yes. Uh, when we last visited this case, my impression was that there were uh unfulfilled conditions that the applicant had not fulfilled. But hearing what you just said, that is not the case. Correct. Yes. Because the only case that actually had um a permit issued was the one for the gazebo, which was the only case that did not have conditions attached to it.

So, every other case that was heard had conditions, but the there was never a permit issued and everything expired. Good. Thank you. Thank you. I I thought I heard that right. Uh my question really was just to make sure everyone else heard that right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other questions from board? No. Is there anybody to [clears throat] speak in favor in favor of this height variance? Yes, please. Here be sworn in. I'm happy to do that. I'm the attorney. I'm just here uh summarizing the argument, but I'm still happy to be sworn in. State your name. Spell your last name. It's Jeffrey Forbes. F O R B E S.

You solemnly swear testimony. You're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing about the truth. So help God. I do. Go ahead.

Thank you, sir. Um, again, my name is Jeff Forbes. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Wood and Lamping uh here on behalf of the Hindu Society of Greater Cincinnati. And I appreciate the opportunity to just take a few minutes based on what I've heard so far. I don't think we'll need much time, but um I appreciate that what we're talking about tonight is just focused on the application that's before you, and that's a height variance for an accessory structure. Um I know you had a hearing back in September, uh took a lot of public comment. I had the opportunity to go back and review that. I've watched it. I'm familiar with what was said that night. And I think that's important because now that we're focused on what's really before the board, really, all you have to do is look at those seven factors that are in your zoning resolution of whether variance should be granted. And our position is that if you look back at the testimony that you've already heard in September, and you can you're welcome to hear more tonight. I've got folks here that can address any questions you might have. But really, even with just the testimony you heard back in September, you have all the information you need to grant the variance that's being requested. I don't want to take up a lot of time, but if you just if you look at those seven factors, you know, the first one is that the granting a variance shall not be injurious or to the area or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. There was no evidence back in September that uh a height variance uh of this nature would have any detrimental impact on the area or the general welfare. Uh your your code says you can't grant a variance if it would allow a use which is otherwise not permitted. That's not the case here either. You're allowed to have an accessory structure building on this property. We're just here for the height variance. Number three is that there have to be special circumstances or conditions related to this. And that's one if you look back at what you heard

back in September, you'll hear plenty of evidence about the special circumstances here. I mean, and I won't recap the whole thing, but you know, the essentially what you have is an applicant who needed a building permit and a zoning permit. They came to the township to get assistance with the form. There were some honest mistakes made both on the part of the applicant and probably on part of the staff that helped fill out that form because the wrong number got put. I think if you look at the drawings that you've seen as part of your packet, you know, 22 feet is where the essentially where the eaves are. 26 is the peak of the roof. They looked, you know, when they filled it out, they used the wrong number. Either way, we acknowledge you should have we needed a variance to begin with, but they they were issued a permit. So, they built exactly what they proposed in the in the plan, and it only was after the fact that it was brought to their attention that that was improper. So, there are some very uh special circumstances related to this. Uh proof of hardship. Again, you saw at the September meeting and you can see actually from the photographs that you got to see again tonight. This is if the variance is not permitted, uh there's really no way that they can house that chariot that they use as part of their uh religious uh as part of their religious services. There's just no way to do it. Uh you've seen the height of it. um the building that they've proposed, while it seems like it's six feet higher than it needs to be, I think you saw plenty of evidence back at the September meeting that really it's the door is where it needs to be so that it can just really barely get through and then you have to have sufficient structural, you know, up on the roof for the rafters, I guess that is. I'm not a not an architect or an

engineer, but whatever, you know, the beams are. So, it may seem that it's high, but it's really the minimum of what was needed to house this. Um, granting the variance has to be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or the building. Again, you heard plenty of evidence uh on that topic back in September that says if they don't get the variance, they, you know, they can't do anything with that chariot and you it would have to be left out in the elements. You know, number six is really simple. the variance. It can't it can't impair the supply of light and air to the neighbors. It doesn't. It can't increase congestion in the public streets. There's no evidence that having a a accessory structure that's taller than what the code allows would have any impact on traffic. Can't be a danger of fire. There's no evidence of that. There's no evidence of any kind of public safety issue with this or any evidence that it would impair property values. And finally, the last factor is that it will not confer on the applicant any special privilege. And it doesn't. I mean, that's you have the variance process for a reason. Granting a variance in and of itself does not give anybody any special privilege. Uh, anyone has the opportunity to apply for a variance. So again, uh we have folks here that are happy to answer any questions if you have any, but I think the facts are the testimony that you heard in September is that really all the evidence that's related to the matter that's before this board would support granting the variance. Um I know you'll have an opportunity for more public comment tonight, so I would just ask to reserve a little bit of time to address any of the comments that are made. But with that, we would ask you to uh consider the evidence, testimony you've already heard, grant the variance, and we're prepared for a decision today.

Any questions from the board? No, not Okay. Thank you. Anybody else to speak in favor of it? [clears throat] Hearing none, is there anybody that's opposed to it? Come up. State your name. Spell your last name. Cody Moore. M O O R E. Raise your right hand. You slely swear testimony. You're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you got I do. Okay. Go ahead.

Uh first off, want to thank the board for giving us an opportunity to talk. Uh legal council for giving that uh statement. Um we have prep prepared a statement. I want to respect what you said earlier. I might skate the issue, but I just want to read the statement first. Um Mr. Ford, Mr. Kangro, Mr. Jenk, Mr. Walker, and Mr. McAdams, we come before you today asking that you review the zoning the zoning code facts and evidence presented and rule accordingly. We are here because once again, our neighbors, the Hindu Society of Greater Cincinnati, cannot follow the rules. If they could, we would not be here talking about this case. The facts are the the chariot storage building was not built according to the zoning regulations, nor to the permit that was submitted. According to the pictures that Mr. McCormack furnished the board. The variance was not needed as the chariot clearly fits inside the building and probably would have fit had the building been constructed per the code. Why is it that the Hindu Society of Greater Cincinnati cannot follow the rules? We continue to see a pattern of do what you want and then ask for forgiveness later. As for the Cloudy Road Gate, Cloudy Road is not safe for any increased traffic then or now. The increased traffic due to the temple opening has put an increased load on the road and caused an unsafe condition. From early on, we had serious safety concerns due to the increased traffic load. There were numerous incidents, accidents, even tour buses coming down a 14t wide road to visit the temple. Everyone except for the neighbors who live on this narrow rural lane has turned a blind eye to the safety aspect of this road, including the Hindu Temple of Greater Cincinnati. They constructed a new access road compliant with all standards and don't want to use it. The gate should be permanently locked down and used first responders only.

Okay. You realize we're not here for Cloudy Road. I and I I apologize. I said I was going to skirt in in our statement, but if we could just continue the rest of the statement. Go ahead.

I will. Thank you. The Hindu Society of Greater Cincinnati has always claimed that they want to be good neighbors, but their actions seem to be in conflict. The neighbors on Clatty Road want to be good neighbors, but we are currently being disadvantaged and put in unsafe conditions. Our request is simple. Please respect our neighborhood where we all live every day. Clatty Road is too narrow for a thorough fair and when used as such provides an unsafe condition for all of us, especially our children. And for those who do not visit our street, on 111225, the Hindu Society of Greater Cincinnati had a contract saw cut the driveway, pour two concrete pads, and run electrical conduit under the drive to supply power for the new power gate openers to be installed. Once again, disobeying this board's orders to comply with condition of the previous variances. At this point, the board, in my opinion, has no other option than to deny the variants requested in case 1-25- A and to find them in violation of the zoning code. The building at this point should not be taken down. Again, this is about safety and this is what this is the only thing this is about. We live on that road and if we have a medical emergency, our families have a medical emergency and there's eight cars on that road, we're not going to get the medical assistance we need. This is very important to us and it's a serious matter. Appreciate your time.

Any questions from the board? No, I have none. Mr. Walker, Mr. Ford. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else is speaking opposed to it? Come on up.

State your name and spell your last name. Um Tim Campbell. C A M TB E L. Okay. And you want to raise your right hand. You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that help you God. I do. Okay. Go ahead. What kind of handout I'd like to to submit for the record if I could, please? Okay. Sure. [clears throat]

enough to be here. Yeah, I know. I got enough. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. So, um I'll stay away from safety. Um it's actually in my opening remarks that I wanted to stay off of safety. Um because we've been beaten on it forever. Um I think the points are made. Um I I did include there's two two pieces here, right? One's a bunch of photos. Um including one of Clatty. I apologize, but it's literally my truck sitting on the road and you can see you can't get around it, right? So, um, but my approach this time is I' I've lived in the township my whole life. Grew up on Clatty Road. Um, watched the temple be being built. It's the 100 acres right across the street from my house. I watched it all happen. Um, so I've got all the history in it.

[clears throat]

So, I also took the time to read um the judge's ruling um on the variances and what happened with the variance. I think I've heard the argument that because there was no um construction actually happening that those variances were lifted. Um frankly, I don't think it matters. Um so, I in my approach today, I took a a legal approach. I'm not an attorney. Um, but I took a legal approach. I read the stuff. Um, and I read the ruling. I threw a bunch of it into AI to see what AI said about it. And, and frankly, I think the argument I'm making here is pretty compelling. Um, um, so I'm again, I'm going to stay away from safety. I'm going jump right into it. Right. So, if you go to the second page of the blue binder, which is my main argument, start with the out building. Um, it's clearly it's clearly a zoning violation period, right? Maximum height 20 ft. Height shown on the improp the improperly approved plan was 23 feet. The height actually constructed 26 26 feet 3 in is a straightforward dimensional violation. Period. Uh Ohio courts have repeatedly held that administrative error does not legalize a zoning violation. The clerk's mistaken approval cannot supersede the zoning resolution and is irrelevant because the Hindight of Greater Cincinnati's actual building height exceeded even the plan. The the applicant is therefore seeking a retroactive height variance which carries the strictest scrutiny because the hardship is self-created in every argument. self-created. This board, I believe, has two options. Deny the variance and require the structure to be brought into compliance.

Um, that effectively means removal or reconstruction. Approve the variance with conditions that protect public safety and the zoning code's intent. Uh, there is no legal basis for unconditional approval. Not an attorney. I believe that's true. I'm going to touch Clatty just shortly. Clatty Road cannot lawfully serve as a regular entrance. Clatty Road is approximately 14 ft wide in most locations. IFC503.2.1 requires 20 ft minimum for fire apparatus access to assembly occupancies. The temple is an assembly occupancy. Therefore, the Clatty Road gate must stay closed on Knox emergencyon status. Katty Road cannot legally serve as an entrance for regular traffic. The board cannot ignore the fire code. The township has no obligation to widen or upgrade Kotti Road for a private user. The applicant already possesses a compliant engineered safe entrance through Barks Altrun Road. These are enforcable safety standards, not opinions. Touch on McBride's ruling. The McBride ruling does not create a right to use Clatty Road as an access. Judge McBride's 2018 ruling overturned only the portion of the board's prior decision that forced the closure of Clatty Road gate as a condition of an unrelated project. He did not grant the applicant any affirmative right to use Clatty Road, restrict the board from imposing reasonable safety based conditions, override fire code or minimum road width requirements, or create any RL UIPA based protection for driveway orientation. His ruling simply held that the closure was not necessary for that project. It did not and could not create a right to use an unsafe road for an assembly

occupancy. In that ruling, the judge also has a reference to RLUIPA argument. RLUIPA does not apply to traffic patterns or preferred driveway orientation. Federal appellet courts are clear that RLUIPA does not regulate traffic, driveway access, or site circulation. I've included three case uh studies that basically says other religious entities have made the same argument and the courts held that it is not an RLUIPi violation. Secondarily, entering for a specific direction is not religious doctrine and is not protected by RLUIPi. Did a little bit of research on Hinduism here. It has been suggested that access from Clatty Road has religious importance because it allows approach to the east. This requires a factual correction. Hindu religion doctrine does not require eastern vehicular access. Vastu Shastra may influence architectural orientation, but it is not a mandatory religious ordinance. Many Hindu temples in Ohio operate without eastern approaches, including the Hindu Temple of Dayton. I I've got five. I've got photos for you. I'm showing you the Google Earth image showing how the approaches are not west to east. based approaches. I also included photos of the Hindu side of Greater Cincinnati and how the approaches from Platty and the approaches from Barksalt are effectively the same. One ends up approaching from the from the north to south. The other ends up approaching from south to north. There's effectively no difference in how the approach to the temple comes. Look at the photos. The conditional variance or denial are the only legal legal defensible outcomes because the applicant is fully compliant

and safe entrance on Barks salt run and because Clatty Road cannot meet fire access with requirements. The most reasonable, lawful and def defensible action is two. If the board grants the height variance, it is required that it be conditional approval on the clatty rate go gate remaining in Knox box emergency only status. That condition complies with fire codes, protects the public safety, constraint uh consistent with zoning intent, avoids getting setting any unsafe precedents, does not infringe on any religious rights, aligns with all relevant case law, [clears throat] allows the applicant to retain the building while maintaining safety. This is the narrowest, most defensible path available. If the board if the board denies the height variance for sake of a complete and defensible administrative record, there is a second outcome that also preserves public safety and keeps the clatty gate road restricted. If the board ch if the board chooses to deny the variance due to the self-inflicted or self-created violation, the result would be that the structure must be brought into compliance, meaning removal or reconstruction with a 20-oot height limit, and the fire code would still prohibit the gate from functioning as a regular entrance. Denying the variance also maintains the current emergency only status of the clatty gate. My conclusion, [clears throat] both legally defensible outcomes, conditional approval or denial result in the clatty gate, clatty road gate remaining restricted to emergency access only. The only action that would be difficult to defend under zoning law, fire code or case law would be granting the variance without conditions or allowing Clatty Road to become a regular entrance. Um, I did what I could to to give you photographs supporting the argument. Um, trying to

stay away from the safety stuff because it's you've never been down there, it's just clear as a bell. So, I invite you to come down, drive my truck, sit at the sit the top of of Cloudy Road where it goes from two lanes to one and then watch what happens. I did it tonight. Uh, it's every day. So, by the way, one other comment. [cough] [clears throat] Before the bar barks road entrance, Clotty Road was a disaster. I mean, you were in ditches, in driveways, you were all over the place. After Bark Salt, it improved dramatically. With the gates closed, that gate opens again, it's going to be bad. Especially during a snow event or or a or an event where they're just dumping traffic out on the cloudy, it's going to be a mess. That gate has to be closed. Final point, it's a safety point. I know there's an argument that says the Barks Salt Road entrance is also dangerous because it's windy and it goes through hills and all that, right? Okay, fine. That's right. But what's more dangerous? And what what should we do? Should we plow that driveway and put salt down or dump all that traffic on the planet? It doesn't make any sense. That gate needs to be changed. Thank you. Any questions from the board?

No. No. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else to speak against it? Hearing none discussion of the board.

How how tall is the chariot? Do we know that? 19 ft 6 in. 600 ft. 6 in. They have not always had this chariot, have they? And prior to that, we approved one time an Ash. I believe so. Remember that? I believe I was on the board. I believe that

for the fire worship. I I guess what I'm curious is with the number of deities, how many more other things might be down the pike for us to consider? And I know this has a bear on this. I'm curious about that. I'm I'm just wondering I don't see how this is a It's somewhat along the lines of a self-imposed. Yeah. I I just I mean can you can a chariot be 18 ft or can it be 17 feet right or is there a dictation that says it's has to be 195 so we might need to bring someone up to find that I have a few questions

but we have a few questions from uh the Hindu society somebody'd like to come up and speak on behalf of them on we need to know some measurements of the uh chariot and etc. So, somebody from it's you've already signed in. Come on up. State your name. Come on up. [clears throat] You so swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. How tall is the existing chariot?

It's 19 and 12 feet. And is that dictated by the religion like the height? No, there are there are chariots are anywhere from 12 ft all the way to 80 ft. Okay. So what just cur what came first the chicken or the egg? In other words, did you buy the chariot and then built the shed for it? Yeah. We we we bought we we designed the chariot so that there is space for the um priest to stand two priests to be able to stand inside. Okay,

that was that was a that was one of the decision parameters. The other parameter that we gave was the width of the uh how far the tires should be apart. Okay, the axle width. I think it's the height and I where the height is now and where the latest photographs that shows the chariot and it seems like there's ample room and I think last

because that's because uh above so we had one and a half ft be between the between the door and the cherry that's what we left and the center where you see that piece is really 26 ft. So you we really should be seeing the chariot right at the door and not where the where we are seeing at the center. So with so the the other the I want to go back to the reasonings that we said.

So we started out with a 21 ft which necessitated a leg height of 22 feet. Okay. And then we wanted to put add a rolling door that can go above and that's what caused the other foot.

Okay. The rolling door sits in a drum I guess. So what is I guess my question would be what what would be the the least or the optimum height you could use right now? Because like I said it looks like it you have a lot of space there. I mean if you lost four feet would that create a problem? Does it have to be, you know, the the full height of 26 feet or could it go down? I just don't think we can add a door with with less than 26. So the the So that type of door, the type of door. So when we asked for a horizontal door, sliding door, gotcha,

our structural engineer said it might not stand because it's so tall, right? He said it might not stand the wind speeds. Okay. So, you need to the coing rolling. That's what he Right. That's what he suggested we go for. But is is that dictating the height of the structure itself is what I'm trying to get at. No, I was there. This is what we gave our engineer that these are the design parameters we gave our engineer the and that's what the shed company designed for us. I was just is there was there any consideration to like a shed roof? So a slanting roof you

slant back and then you would still have the room for they felt that they could not do it at that height. That's that's essentially all that was there. If it can be done I don't know. I know plenty of buildings. I'm not an engineer. I know plenty I am an engineer but I'm not a civil engineer. I have studied electrical engineer. I know plenty of buildings that height that have a shed roof on it. I mean, that's not that's not unique. So So, so the the so the the other condition was the dooring rolling door, but it doesn't take 6' 3 in to put that rolling door on.

It was 4 feet 3 in I think above the leg height. Yes. And I have another question. Yes, sir. You uh were given a variance of 22 feet, right? Why did you build it 263?

We from the very beginning our design document specified 263. We took it took the document to the office and so stuck engineering drawings apparently specify the leg height and not the rooftop height. And so when we took the drawing to the to the zoning commission's office, the staff there who helped us enter the height saw that 24x 20x 22 height at the very top of the drawing on a cover page. And that's what the 22 that's where the 22 came from. It's I agree it's my mistake. I should have caught it caught the enter the wrong number. I did not. I think I

but that doesn't answer my question. If you were only given a variance of 2 feet, why did you build it 6'3 in? Sir, but it wasn't. So from the very beginning, we had only designed for 26. Just to correct what you're saying, they did not get a variance of 22 feet. They had there was there was a mistake in the office that allowed them to have 22 feet, but they did not get a variance because even if they built it at 22 feet, they would be in the same position and we would still exactly for the 22 feet, I believe. Is that not correct? I don't I don't Yeah, that's right.

That would be in a way I'm saying if we never change the Okay, that's what I So, that's what I'm saying. But in his in his opinion, he was given the variance for 22 feet. Well, that's fine. But but that's not what that's not what that's not right. That's not what I'm claiming. I think we were approved for 22 ft. I agree. But from the very beginning our intent was to build at 26 ft 3 in because that's what that's the plan we submitted to the building permit also for the building permit also which has nothing to do with this.

Can I ask Mark just to be clear without having to dig back through this when they submitted those plans it was submitted at 263? Uh, I don't honestly know what was submitted up front because it went to another staff member, but the staff member was trying to help them complete the application form and so doing I think he's the one that put the 22 foot number on there. Um, I don't know if he was looking at what you see there on the exact drawing he was looking at. So, if you look at that, it says 24 by 20 by 20. This is a oneley drawing behind. Is there an approved set of drawings from the where is

it being a permit? I would think that it being whatever. Yeah, we don't have the elevation. We did not have the elevation attached to the um so this is what we took in this is what we took in he entered this and gave it back to us.

So we did not submit it to the zoning commission. We submitted this document only to the building. I I would note I would note it's not unusual for us to not have a building elevation on an accessory structure. We usually just have them indicate the applicant indicate what the height is. And so I think what happened was that was an empty field or blank and the other staff member that was involved with looking this over was just trying to help them fill it in. As you pointed out, just because there's a clerical or administrative error doesn't mean it's a variance. But I think the point here is is even at 22 feet whether whether this would have been caught up front or not they would still have had to come in for a variance anyways. It's just from the be from the beginning we would have all been hearing that they need a 6 foot3 variance and would be trying to establish you know that is a justified amount or not versus another amount.

Right. the twoft um administrative error is an administrative error. If you know like let's say for example if the board were to affirm the 22 foot number that would be a variance of 2 feet. Um the staff cannot grant a variance you would be affirming the number that the staff gave as far as like an acceptable number on the application as a variance. But whether that number is two feet, six foot three or something in between, it's a variance. And no matter, you know, what that number is or whether it occurred before a permit was issued or later. So, so just to re reate 40 years of statement. So, we would have had to come earlier rather than after the fact when the other was disco.

Anybody else have anything? Not for him, but we're still a discussion of the board. So, here's my

right. That's why I'm talking about the board. I've always been uh in the thought process of you can't grant something just a variance for somebody because you're going to get pinned against the next case that if it's not all according to this book and my problem with this is 431 a it cannot be self-created. Well, he just said that you could buy that from anywhere from 12 to 80 ft tall. They bought one at 19'6. So that somewhat self-imposes their problem. Then if you go to 431B as granted in the minimum a minimum variance to accomplish their purpose. Well, I don't I believe that the minimum variance could be 22 feet or 23 feet, whatever it takes. You can build a building with a shed roof that angled back that probably accomplishes it less than 26.

Basically, if you did your homework, you'd know you had a 20 foot max and then you'd buy your chariot to fit the opening or go in and get a variance, right? You could I mean go and get a variance to get what size you ended up getting or work with that is that that's how I'm taking it where you know your line of thought that's just a couple thoughts I have no I get it does everybody follow that so Brian here usually what's your thought exactly um [clears throat] I The opening is 20 ft, correct? Yes.

Yes. And it fits through there. I believe Scott went measured it today. He measured it before the meeting. So that is the that's actually the the minimum needed, right? And the only thing they need to do is put say a shed roof on it, whatever pitch or whatever, and then it would have would have worked. But what I'm hearing is I guess they're engineer. Someone said you can't do that. But I agree. I think you can do that. lots of places say lots of things because they want to design it the way they want to design it, right? You you're going to have a problem. So, we're we're at 20 we're at 20 ft. You you got to have structure above that. So, you're going to have to have you can't lower it, right?

You know, so you you you're going to have to it's going to have to be more than 20 feet tall no matter what type of roof you have on it. Correct. You you could if he's saying that the that the that the drum door has to be taller than that. There's exterior style or you could even do the e exterior types of doors because they do that on air aircraft uh the the hangers and so that's that's what we have to have to consider. I mean do you want to turn it down flatly or do we want to make some you know meet halfway in the middle? I I I I don't know what the answer is. Well,

does that I mean you you see as far as the structure that's I I wouldn't have problem with 22 feet. I don't know if it could be done at 22 feet. I would think it could be if the opening is to what we just said with the door. That drum roller's got to be at least for the drop on that thing at least 3 4 feet round diameter. But what if you used a different type of door?

Exactly. Which goes back to the airplane hanging kind of door or another type of door or even a rolling door opens up or something, you know, that's on the ground. But I mean the location I look at it like the location of where that shed is or the the garage so to speak is kind of like off the way, you know, so it's not like it's in someone's face. And as for the other comments that I'm hearing like about the road, that has no bearing on this. We're not talking about cloudy road.

Well, yeah, but I'm just saying that has what we're that what we're doing here has no bearing on what's going on. You know, a lot of the stuff that I heard and that's a separate issue in my opinion that needs to be addressed elsewhere. Right. Sir, can I ask one question? Sure. Come over. You're still under oath. Yeah. I'm not here to argue anything. I just genuinely um it was I thought Cloudy Road was a condition of being this granted. That is now not the case.

Cloudy Road has nothing to do with the height of that building. But in in in general, wasn't there conditions to get the permit? And Clatty Road was part of those conditions. That's the only reason I'm asking is I was under the impression that they had to perform certain things to get this permit and Clatty Road was part of that. Not that I know of.

What they applied for was a simple zoning permit. And so for a simple zoning permit, that's not something that we would normally attach as a condition. Um the clatty road issues where there were conditions attached were on all those other cases that had come before the board of zoning appeals. And you're saying those are expired now?

Yes. And I didn't know that without doing some leg work because I've only worked at the township for about three years and all those other all those cases were further back. And so between me doing research and them also providing information on their end, we found that the only thing they built was that gazebo that's ever in the children's playing area. And but that one didn't have any conditions attached to it. All their other applications did, but then they never built it. And they have a one-year period for both any variance. Like if they if any variance is granted, they have a one-year period to make something happen. If they don't file for a permit within that one-year period, they lose the variance unless they come back to the board to try to get it back.

With the permit being issued, they then have one year to start construction and basically two years to finish. None of that ever happened on any of those other improvements. Okay. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. All right. Did you have something you wanted to say?

I just wanted to make one point before board uh gets to its decision. Uh you'll see in [clears throat] your staff report, it's really clear that the decision that you make tonight has to be based on the evidence and the testimony and the findings of fact. And there's been a lot of discussion just among the board about whether it could be 22 feet or 20, however many feet or what kind of door. Your decision has to be based on the testimony and the evidence that's already been presented either tonight or at the se September 18th meeting. And the only evidence that was presented and reiterated again tonight is that is the minimum that they could do based on what their structural engineer said. That's how tall the door had to be. That's the clearance they needed for the type of door that was on the application and that's the structure that was needed above it. That's the only that's the only evidence and testimony that you have before you to make a decision. So, we would we just ask you to keep that in mind.

Still doesn't say that whether they made their own uh Well, they obviously did. He just he just testified to that. Right. Right. It is possible to buy a chariot 12 feet to 80 ft. Right. They bought one that was 196. So they could have an 80 foot one and we would be looking at a 90 foot building, right? They have to put a little light on the top of that one.

Any other discussion? We're I'm sure I know the answer to this, but we're under no obligation to ever grant any variance, are we? It's not like there's some rule that says because we are the board that does it that we in fact actually have to do that.

No, I think I think um The short answer is no. But the little bit longer answer to that is the zoning resolution which has been adopted by the trustees outlines the variance process and also um you know the conditions that you are the standards that you are to consider in doing that. But um it's your guys's perview purview as a independent public body to essentially weigh the evidence in front of you, put them against the standards that are in the zoning resolution and then make a decision. But it doesn't it's not like an automatic approval. Um it's it's your guys's, you know, the administrative deference given to you all to essentially weigh the facts, apply it to the factors um that Mr. Forbes went through and I think are in the staff report um to to to go through. But if you guys determine that these factors aren't met, right, and weighing the evidence, then that would lead presumably to approving the variance um request. And if you determine that the facts and evidence before you don't support aren't supported by those standards, then you guys can modify it, deny it. Um it's certainly within your guys' um statutory power. So,

thank you. So, would you say the facts are that they came in and applied for a variance to the drawings. That's the fact, right? Which was 26 feet. That's the fact. So, I guess the way I'm taking all this is you either agree either, you know, that's the fact or we can, you know,

I also believe that typically we would grant a variance almost up to 25% which would be 25 ft. It is close to that. Yeah. And I mean there had nothing I mean and I get the chariot part you know you know you know in hindsight you know if they bought that first you know back to what I said before but that's not part as I take it unless I'm wrong that's not the fact they bought the chair first but we also had the guy that bought the RV that wouldn't fit in this building and then wants to build the building right like it doesn't make any sense. It's self- opposed. Yeah. There's not a there's not a hardship that exists here.

No. That was that wasn't at all times in control of the applicant. No, but they applied for 26, but it wasn't approved. No, no, no. I understand that. But that's what they came in and applied for. As for the other guy, I have no idea about that case, but I'm just, you know, just thinking out loud. I have a pretty interesting point. Yeah. Come on up here. You're still under oath.

I apologize. I'm the historian or one of them. Anyway, uh in the September meeting, I think there's testimony that said they had to buy it at 196 that it wasn't optional. Now, today it's now 12 foot to 80 foot. In September, it was 196. Right. religiously. That's why I made the point in RLIPA, right? So the the sand shift, the stories change, they don't follow the rules. So but I want to make that point that September one story today different story. Okay.

I would like to say I formally I don't think this question of it being haggen to be 19 ft ever came up in the meeting to my recall. If people had asked me at that time what's the minimum height of a chariot I I still don't know whether it's 12 feet it might even be 10 feet but I haven't seen I I I'm not a religious expert okay but I al when I say 80 ft those 80 ft chariots are rare they are in India okay and they are one in thousand okay so I'm trying to give you the entire range and I'm being very honest to you.

Yeah. Now, my point in asking you the question about the height was I was trying to ascertain uh something in regards to uh hardship. That that's it. That was my only point. I think what that said was given our wheel basease that we asked for and the height of the the chariot designer said it must be 19.5 ft. That's a probably a statement I made. Okay. But I didn't say that is the only high. No. Thank you. Any other discussion? I don't have any.

Scott. No. For me. You ready to make a motion?

Yeah. I'm going to make a motion. Um, in accordance with article 4, section 430 431 of the zoning resolution of the board of appeals, uh, I would like to make a motion to deny the applicant's proposed variance request to allow for a 6'3 in variance to allow for an overall height of the proposed storage structure to be 26 uh, ft. 3 in. I'm going to base this on section 431 uh a 4315A. Uh that states that the hardship cannot be self-created and uh that is backed up by his testimony that said the chariot could have been uh created at any height between 12 feet and 80 feet. Um, you're referring to 5D. There was a typo, just so you know.

It's 5D. What? You're in 5B. D is a dog. Oh, D. D. Oh, I see that. Yeah, we need to fix that. Sorry.

Does that conclude the motion? That was every bas testimony bindings back. Do we have a second? We have I'll second it. Who second it? I'll second it. Okay. Roll call. Mr. Walker. I. Mr. McAdams. I. Mr. Ford. I. Mr. Kangro. I. Mr. Jenkins. I. Motion passes. Any other things come before this board?

Excuse me. Um, however, I did want to point out to you that I have been sending you the draft text for the short-term rentals because that had also been something that came up at the September meeting. We are not finished with that work, but I'll keep sending you that text for you to look at. And if you have any comments on that, just email me or call me. Okay. Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Go ahead. Second. Roll call. Mr. Wker. I. Mr. McAdams. I. Mr. Ford. I Mr. Kangro I Mr. Jake I motion passes we're Close