CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING April 16, Mr. Paino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING April 16, Mr. Paino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m."

Erick Gilbert
6 years ago
Views:

1 CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Paino Geneva Hintz Diane Werner ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Steve Balazs Rich Fender Jim Silver, Law Director Heather Phile, Development Planner Sheila Uzl, Transcriptionist I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Paino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE The pledge was recited. III. ROLL CALL Geneva Hintz, Diane Werner, and Peter Paino were present. IV. PREAMBLE Variance requests will be considered in the order that they appear on the agenda. Each variance applicant or their representative will first explain the request to the Board and will respond to Board questions. The Board will then hear statements from persons supporting the variance, followed by statements from those persons opposing the variance. All persons making statements will do so under oath, and shall state their name and address for the record. Their testimony shall be directed to the Board and not to the audience. If a member of the audience wishes to ask a question of one of the speakers, he or she shall first be recognized by the Chairman of the Board and direct the question to the Chairman. The Chairman will then direct the question to the appropriate witness. This will allow the meeting to be conducted in an orderly manner. If written statements have been provided to the Board, they will be included in the record of this meeting. At the Chairman s discretion, they may be read into the record during the meeting. After all testimony has been taken, the Board will discuss and review the request. Generally, the Board

2 Page 2 of 5 will decide to approve or deny each requested variance at the meeting that it hears the testimony. Some decisions may be continued for further review. Mr. Silver read the General standards from Section (b)(3) that the Board of Zoning Appeals follows in the granting of any variance. In every instance where the Board grants or recommends a variance, there must be a finding by the Board that: (1) The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses within the same zoning district. (3) The granting of such variances will not be of substantial detriment to the public interest or to adjacent property owners or improvements in such districts in which the variance is sought and will not materially impair the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Paino read the following statement that summarizes the Board s authority: The Board of Zoning Appeals operates according to the provisions of the Kent City Zoning Code which provides for the establishment of the Board. Members of the Board, Kent citizens serving without pay, visit sites and hear evidence both pro and con at public meetings before carefully and conscientiously rendering a decision. After a decision has been made, the case is closed for the Board, as there is no provision in the code for the Board to reopen a case. If the petitioner disagrees with the findings of the Board, there are only two proper procedures. One is to resubmit a revision of the request that is more compatible with the code and the second is to institute legal procedures in the Common Pleas Court. V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH Mr. Silver instructed members of the audience wishing to be heard on any of the cases presented at this meeting to rise and raise their right hand. Mr. Silvers administered the oath, Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Please say I do. The participants responded, I do. VI. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Paino told all the applicants that since there were only three board members present at the meeting, all of them had to vote yes in order for their

3 Page 3 of 5 requests to be granted. He stated that the applicants could go through the whole presentation and then could table their request until a full board was present. A. BZ John Blanar 541 Park Avenue Sections: Request: (a) and (a) The applicant is requesting the following: 1) An appeal to the Zoning Inspector s decision to refuse a non-conforming use certificate that would recognize the property at 541 Park Avenue as a multi-family dwelling. 2) An appeal for violating Kent Codified Ordinance (a). James Ickes, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicants would like to table the case. He asked if the people that were at the meeting to testify could proceed with their testimony but Mr. Paino suggested that if they were willing to return, it would be better to come back to give their testimony when all the board members were present. The people who were going to testify were willing to return to give their testimony. Mr. Paino asked for a motion to table the case. Motion: Ms. Hintz moved that in case BZ07-003, John Blanar, owner of the property located at 541 Park Avenue, the Board of Zoning Appeals tables this case until the May 21, 2007 meeting. Vote: Motion Passed 3 0. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. BZ Roger Muzia/ Jeremy & Melissa Baynes 931 Fieldstone Drive Section: (a)

4 Page 4 of 5 Request: The applicant is requesting a 15-foot front yard setback variance to allow a garage addition to be 30-feet from the north property line. Mr. Paino asked the applicant to present his request. Jeremy Baynes, 931 Fieldstone Drive, Kent, Ohio, stated they were asking for a 15-foot setback variance in order to allow a garage addition. He said there is no other place to put this addition. The garage that is there now will hold two cars but there is not much room for storage or for a work area. He said they could not have a storage shed because they are on a corner lot. PUBLIC COMMENT None BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DISCUSSION/ACTION Ms. Hintz stated that if the applicant tried to put a shed in his backyard, it would be right in the middle of his children s play area. There really is no place to put a shed. She asked what he was going to do about the landscaping because there were some nice trees and bushes there. Mr. Baynes replied that they want to transplant all of those. Mr. Paino stated that Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances based on the three criteria that Mr. Silver had read earlier. Ms. Werner asked the applicant if he had discussed this project with any of his neighbors. Mr. Baynes replied that he has not had any negative comments and all of his neighbors did get the notice of the hearing. He said it would look nice. Ms. Werner asked the applicant if he would have considered a storage shed if he had a deeper lot. Mr. Baynes replied more than likely. He said this addition is pretty expensive. He said it would not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. He said the way the house is situated on the lot would be the extraordinary circumstances.

5 Page 5 of 5 Ms. Werner asked if there was a sign out in front of the property noting the request as well as date and time of meeting. Ms. Hintz stated she had spoken with a couple of neighbors and they had no problem with the project. She said there was a sign but the wind could have blown it down. Ms. Werner that the addition would not be a detriment to the surrounding areas. She was in favor of the variance. Mr. Paino stated that the strict application of the code would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. He said the extraordinary circumstance is that it is a corner lot so requires a double setback. It would not be a detriment to the adjacent properties. There were no other comments, so Mr. Paino asked for a motion. Motion: Ms. Hintz moved that in case BZ07-008, Jeremy & Melissa Baynes, owners of the property located at 931 Fieldstone Drive, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grants the applicant s request for a 15-foot front yard setback variance as defined in Section (a) of the Kent City Zoning Code to allow a garage addition to be 30-feet from the north property line Vote: Motion passed 3 0. VIII. MEETING MINUTES Motion: Ms. Hintz moved to approve the March 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes as written. Vote: The motion passed 3-0. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer Eric Fink, Asst. Law Director Sheila Uzl Transcriptionist

KENT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING JULY 16, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Peter Paino John Gargan Melissa Long Greg Balbierz Anthony Catalano Jennifer Barone, Development Engineer