LIBERTY TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION September 18, :00 PM MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 LIBERTY TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION September 18, :00 PM MEETING MINUTES The Zoning Commission was called to order at 6400 Princeton Road at 6:00 P.M. by Chairman Forrest Holger. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by those in attendance. Upon call of the roll, members in attendance were: Forrest Holger, Jamie Dobrozsi, Mike Dunn, Mike Stater, and Mike Ward. Staff member Andy Juengling, Senior Planner, was also in attendance. Mr. Holger reviewed the procedures of the hearing and performed a group swearing in. Mr. Holger called for case ZC17-018: Dairy Queen Zoning Map Amendment & Preliminary PUD Review Mr. Juengling presented the staff report, a PowerPoint presentation and case materials. Mr. Holger asked to hear from the applicant. Applicant, Brooke Lindholm, Brooke Lindholm (Kleingers Group), 6305 Centre Park Drive, West Chester, OH 45069, stated the applicant met with staff to discuss the site plan since the August Zoning Commission meeting. She outlined the revised site plan, and discussed the building material breakdown which exceeds the minimum 50% brick/stone requirement, and that the site has 63% lot coverage compared to the maximum 85% lot coverage. She indicated that the driveway onto Wyandot Lane will align with the approved access drive to Bethany Station on the north side of Wyandot Lane. She ensured that the detention basin would be properly maintained as recommended by staff. Mr. Holger asked if the applicant had any issues regarding any of the conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Lindholm indicated there were no issues. Mr. Stater commended the applicant on the reconfiguration of the site and asked if signage had been considered at this point. Ms. Lindholm indicated that signage will be proposed at the time of Final PUD submittal and plan to comply with the overlay district standards. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a proponent of this case. No one spoke. Jeff Piatt, 3330 Tuscarora Court, Fairfield Township, OH stated he was there to speak on behalf of the perspective business owners. He spoke on childhood memories of the Dairy Queen brand. He stated the intent for the building to include a covered patio on the Cincinnati-Dayton Road elevation. He indicated that the building materials proposed exceed the minimum 50% requirement. He stated the drive thru accounts for roughly 40% of the business, and it has been relocated to the rear of the building for added curb appeal. He further stated that the restaurant will have additional seating capacity to ensure the majority of the business will not be drive-thru customers. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone else to speak as a proponent of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as an opponent of this case. 1

2 Violet Poynter, 6693 Cincinnati Dayton Road, Liberty Township, OH, stated that she is opposed to this development as restrictions in the overlay have hindered her ability to develop her property. She outlined water issues and inquired about the BCEO review of the proposal. She expressed concerns regarding lighting and signage of the proposed development. She indicated her belief that there is a double standard regarding regulations. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone else to speak as an opponent of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a neutral party of this of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Ward made a motion to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Dobrozsi seconded. Upon the call of the roll, the motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Holger stated that the applicant had worked to address a number of the issues outlined by staff and the Zoning Commission. Mr. Stater asked if the applicant still intended to install lattice work over the drive-thru as mentioned in the previous month s meeting. Ms. Lindholm indicated that the lattice work was offered as a screening method in the previous layout, but felt it not necessary with the current layout, unless it is required. Mr. Dobrozsi stated he maintained the same position he held at the last meeting. He expressed that the proposed development is not consistent with the intent of the overlay district. He commended the applicant on the effort put into the revised site plan, though he still feels the proposal is forced for the site. He added concern that customers in the drive-thru que have the potential of being blocked in if they need to leave the line for any reason. He stated his belief that ultimately the overlay district should take precedence over the PUD. Mr. Holger asked for a motion on this case. Mr. Ward made a motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case ZC to subject to the recommended conditions in the Draft Notice of Decision & Resolution. Mr. Stater seconded. Upon call of the roll: Mr. Dobrozsi no; Mr. Dunn yes; Mr. Stater yes; Mr. Ward yes; Mr. Holger yes. The motion passed. Mr. Holger called for case ZC17-019: ifly Minor Modification & Final PUD Review Mr. Juengling presented the staff report, a PowerPoint presentation and case materials. Mr. Holger asked staff for clarification regarding the signage calculations. Mr. Juengling clarified. Mr. Holger asked to hear from the applicant. Applicant, Lou Gambertoglio, 6034 W. Courtyard Drive, #135, Austin, TX 78730, stated that in the last month they have worked to address as many items as they could, given the site restrictions. He stated they are looking for leniency regarding the site constraints, as they have addressed all the items that were able to as far as landscaping, building materials, sidewalks, etc. Mitch Fry (Steiner + Associates), 8796 Kunker Road, Morrow, OH, stated they have been working with the applicant and staff to meet the regulations to the extent possible given the site shape and size. He stated they are working to bring in an exciting use to a parcel that was not originally planned for development. 2

3 Steve Hunt, 5159 Riverstone Drive, South Lebanon, OH, stated that this is a very unique and family oriented business. He outlined his personal connection to the use. He stated it brings in over 10,000 visitors annually. Mr. Holger asked is Mr. Hunt had vested interest in the product. Mr. Hunt stated he is a traveling proponent and is assisting in bringing ifly to Liberty Township. Mr. Holger stated that a lot of items have been addressed, though now his biggest concern is the signage. He outlined the 4% requirement and stated the areas that exceed this requirement. Mr. Gambertoglio stated they have standard sign packages that they use for each facility, and the signage is basically their marketing. Mr. Gambertoglio stated they would not be able to meet the 4% requirement, and the signage is used to break up the large towers. He added that smaller signage gets lost in the large facades. Mr. Holger asked for clarification regarding the signage dimensions. Mr. Juengling clarified. Mr. Dunn stated his concern regarding the signage is that the hospitals in the area were held to the 4% requirement, so it is something that don t make exceptions for. Mr. Gambertoglio asked if the structure could receive approval without a sign variance. Mr. Juengling confirmed, and stated a Minor Modification for additional signage could be requested at a later time. Mr. Hunt stated that the voids were not included in the 4% calculation, and added the signs are scaled to fit the size of the building. Mr. Gambertoglio stated the signage for the retail structure is an award winner and has been successful at several other locations. Mr. Dobrozsi stated the Chicago location doesn t have the signage that is being proposed for the Liberty Center location. Mr. Gambertoglio stated this was an older generation facility. Mr. Dobrozsi asked about the decibel levels of the mechanics of the structure. Mr. Gambertoglio stated there were no audible sounds of the mechanics from the exterior of the building. Mr. Dobrozsi asked the applicant about the ability to reuse the structure if the business were to close at this location, or if there was anything built into the lease regarding how long the structure could be empty. Mr. Gambertoglio stated that in 20 years of operation, there have not been any closures. Mr. Fry stated he is not sure on the specifics of the lease and whether or not there is language regarding this concern. Mr. Hunt stated that for this location to fail, all locations would have to fail. Mr. Dobrozsi stated the three concerns he has are the structure itself (scale/mass), the obstruction of views of Liberty Center, and the odd shape of the property. He added that if the business closes, these three concerns would be deterrents for a future business to use this structure. Mr. Fry stated the views that would be blocked are those when the vehicle is merging onto Liberty Way. He added that the property directly south of the proposed building will be incorporated into the design of this building. He stated that all businesses are fully vetted through Steiner + Associates. Mr. Holger asked what would happen if ifly bought out the lease and moved, and Steiner was then stuck with the vacant building. Mr. Gambertoglio stated he can understand the concern, and discussed the financials behind the business and stated they are not going anywhere anytime soon. He stated they choose their locations very specifically because of the regional draw and they base the locations on the region they go into. 3

4 Mr. Hunt stated the removal of the airflow towers is very simple. Mr. Dobrozsi stated he tends to agree with staff regarding the signage concerns. Mr. Dunn stated there are three (3) items in contention: the setbacks, the brick/stone material, and the signage. He stated he understands the desire to find a customer for this unique site, but the building feels forced onto the site. Mr. Fry stated that there are obligations to other tenants within the development that prevent the building from being relocated to another area on the development. He added that the future planning of the development will take this site and building into consideration. He stated it was a unique opportunity to bring something unique to the developer. Mr. Gambertoglio stated this allows the tax base to be increased by developing a parcel that wasn t originally planned for development. Mr. Dunn stated they cannot consider this in their review, and mentioned he doesn t believe he is the target audience anyway. Mr. Gambertoglio explained the demographics and outlined the process and cost of the experience. Mr. Dobrozsi stated he understands the use. He stated the topic of signage is critical, and the site layout is critical. Mr. Gambertoglio stated that any variances from the signage will need to be approved by corporate, and they have passed on locations because they weren t able to receive the approval for the signage they wanted. Mr. Stater asked if there were any updates to the comments from the BCEO. Mr. Fry stated these items would be complied with. Mr. Holger asked staff about the height of the maximum height for letters regarding signage. Mr. Juengling explained that there is not a maximum size of letters, it is only calculated as maximum square footage for the sign area. Mr. Holger asked staff for clarification regarding the difference between a cabinet sign and a push-through sign. Mr. Juengling clarified. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a proponent of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as an opponent of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a neutral party of this of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Dunn made a motion to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Ward seconded. Upon the call of the roll, the motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Holger explained the case and stated this case would not be going before the Board of Trustees. He stated he is concerned regarding the sign size and letter height. He stated he is curious of how small the sign would look if it was at 4%. Mr. Ward stated if the voids were closed, the 4% calculation for signage would allow for more sign area. The Zoning Commission worked through some calculations regarding the building elevation and sign calculations. Mr. Holger asked if there were other concerns the Zoning Commission had other than signage. Mr. Dunn stated the setbacks requirements and the proposed setbacks. 4

5 Mr. Holger stated that the highway ramp is located even further than the property line. He added that a sidewalk was added between the last meeting and the current hearing. Mr. Juengling clarified the setbacks and right-of-way line. Mr. Holger asked the elevation of the building at the site line of the exit ramp. Mr. Fry and Mr. Juengling pointed out the grading plan. Mr. Holger mentioned that driving through the Liberty Center development, the buildings are setback from the road further than 6 with a wider sidewalk. He expressed the comparisons between those retail buildings and the proposed structure. Mr. Stater expressed uncertainty regarding the future use of this area of the Liberty Center development, whether it would continue as entertainment or office, and the concern regarding the rear setback to these uses. Mr. Dobrozsi stated he could live with the setback in this area of the site, but stated he is stuck on the signage. Mr. Holger stated he keeps going back and forth between the relationship between the setbacks and the proposed signage. Mr. Dunn stated his concern is consistency regarding signage with other cases that have come before the Zoning Commission. He stated whatever the decision is, he wanted to make sure it could be defended. Mr. Holger outlined the changes that have been made between the last hearing and the current proposal. Mr. Dobrozsi asked the applicant s position on staff s comments. Mr. Holger outlined the applicant responses received in the updated case reports. Mr. Dobrozsi asked clarification regarding the certain material and window comments. Mr. Juengling clarified these items. Mr. Dunn asked clarification regarding the number of parking spaces. Mr. Juengling clarified. Mr. Dobrozsi listed the conditions recommended by staff in the Draft Notice of Decision & Resolution, and stated it seemed the only outstanding item was related to the size of signage. He added there could be a motion with all of the conditions, including the applicant work with staff regarding the signage. Mr. Juengling indicated that staff only has the authority to allow a maximum of 4% signage, so any variance on that, there would need to be another Zoning Commission meeting for a Minor Modification. Mr. Juengling stated if the board is looking to allow only 4%, this language should be clearly specified in the motion. Mr. Holger reiterated his interpretation of what Mr. Juengling stated. Mr. Juengling confirmed. Mr. Dobrozsi asked if a motion could be made with the conditions listed by staff, and that would accomplish the 4% signage requirement. Mr. Juengling stated that a numerical percentage would need to be included regarding the signage as the condition does not currently list a percentage. Mr. Holger asked staff for clarification for whether or not language for a motion would make sense regarding the signage needing to meet the regulations of the Zoning Resolution. Mr. Juengling confirmed and stated if that is the motion that is made, that language would make sense. 5

6 Mr. Dunn stated the condition could be for 4% of the entire building, which would include the voids in the structure into the total square footage for the building elevation, which allows some flexibility, but still upholds the requirements of the Zoning Resolution. Mr. Juengling clarified the suggestion by outlining the 4% on the building elevation graphic. Mr. Dobrozsi asked whether or not the approval would be held up if the applicant is still working on the signage details. Mr. Juengling stated that if the Final PUD is approved, the applicant is able to proceed with the Zoning Certificate for the building, and can work on the details related to signage separately. Mr. Holger asked for a motion on this case. Mr. Dobrozsi made a motion to APPROVE Case ZC with the modification to item #4, which signage shall meet the standards of the Zoning Resolution (the voids can be included in the building elevation calculation), and any modification to these standards will require approval by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Ward seconded. Upon call of the roll: Mr. Stater no; Mr. Ward yes; Mr. Holger yes; Mr. Dobrozsi yes; Mr. Dunn no. The motion passed. Mr. Holger called for case ZC17-020: Tie Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment Mr. Juengling presented the staff report, a PowerPoint presentation and case materials. Mr. Dunn asked confirmation that this property was not part of the proposed Gaker Farm development. Mr. Juengling confirmed. Mr. Holger asked to hear from the applicant. Applicant, Todd Terry, 5396 Princeton Road, Liberty Township, OH 45011, outlined the plans to use this property as a garden center and indicated the proposed access point onto Hamilton-Middletown Road (SR- 4). He indicated which portion of the use would be situated in Liberty Township and which would be located in Lemon Township. He stated that the growing fields would be located on the southern portion of the site and near the floodplain area. He added that there is an existing 4 6 deep BP gas line that runs through the site. Mr. Terry stated the use would utilize the color scheme that is present throughout Carriage Hill. He stated he had worked with Jim Fox with Lemon Township zoning regarding the proposal. He indicated the location of existing sewer, but the intent is to use a leech field system. He outlined that the potential to have access to Lesourdsville West Chester Road is not possible due to the topography and stream present on that portion of the site. Mr. Holger asked clarification regarding the gas line. Mr. Terry explained. Mr. Dunn asked about the existing residential structures in Lemon Township along Lesourdsville West Chester Road. Mr. Terry pointed out the existing residential structures and explained the existing conditions of these properties and outlined which properties were not part of the proposed use, and is located on the opposite side of the creek from the site. Mr. Stater asked the applicant whether this would be a 12 month a year business. Mr. Terry indicated the intent of the operation. Mr. Stater asked about signage and lighting. Mr. Terry stated the intent of how the site would be developed and laid out. 6

7 Mr. Juengling clarified that as this property is split between Liberty Township and Lemon Township, Liberty Township would review only the portion of the development that takes place within Liberty Township to ensure it meets the regulations of the zoning resolution. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a proponent of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as an opponent of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a neutral party of this of this case. No one spoke. Mr. Dobrozsi made a motion to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Dunn seconded. Upon the call of the roll, the motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Holger asked for a motion on this case. Mr. Dobrozsi asked for clarification that this case will be heard by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Juengling confirmed. Mr. Dobrozsi made a motion to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case ZC Mr. Stater seconded. Upon call of the roll: Mr. Holger yes; Mr. Dobrozsi yes; Mr. Dunn yes; Mr. Stater yes; Mr. Ward. The motion passed. Mr. Holger called for case ZC17-021: 5092 Elk Meadows Court Minor Modification Mr. Juengling presented the staff report, a PowerPoint presentation and case materials. Mr. Holger asked to hear from the applicant. Applicant, Connie Miller, 5092 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, stated she is the owner of the property, and is the third owner of record on the property. She stated that she found out about the noncompliant deck in July 2017 when she came before the Zoning Commission for a screened in patio addition request. She stated if she knew the deck was illegal, she likely would not have purchased the home. She indicated that there is an existing cement slab that extends out from the deck. Mr. Holger asked for clarification regarding the slab and pictures provided by the applicant. Ms. Miller confirmed and explained the pictures. Mr. Dunn asked about the request from the July case, and recalling that the applicant s representative stating the deck was not usable. Ms. Miller indicated that she had the deck stabilized and stained. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a proponent of this case. Brenda Stieger, 5309 Mariner s Way, Liberty Township, OH 45011, stated she was the previous owner of the property at 5092 Elk Meadows Court, before she purchased a home in the Harbor Towne subdivision. She stated she purchased the home from an 80-year old woman. She stated she was not aware that the deck was built without a permit. She stated she had never received a complaint regarding the deck while she was living at the property. She indicated the deck looks better now than it did when she lived there. She stated she felt the complaint filed must be personal. Ms. Stieger indicated that she came to the meeting on her own will to show her support. She stated it is a shame that this came about when the property owner was only trying to make an improvement to the home. 7

8 Mr. Holger explained that the previous request brought this violation to light, and the township only acts on violations when there is a complaint filed. He added that the township was not aware the deck had been built until the request in July was made, and the illegal deck was uncovered. He stated that the request tonight was for the minor modification to allow the deck to remain and encroach within the minimum required rear yard setback. He added that the slab that comes off the back of the house is likely the egress from the rear of the home, which was covered by the deck. Karen Baker, 5129 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, stated that everyone that lives in Elks Run takes care of the home, and Ms. Miller takes such pride in her home. She asked if everything was done legally when the home was purchased, and someone makes a complaint, can the Zoning Commission make the owner tear something down. She stated there are other decks that appear that they encroach in the setbacks. Mr. Holger clarified the purpose behind the request and the background of the case. Ms. Baker stated the house was purchased in good faith. Willard Baker, 5129 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, asked the Zoning Commission to consider the existing built environment of the rear yards of these properties and consider how these yards are used by the residents. He stated the reduction in the setback is not hurting anything. Tom Scheidler, 5102 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, asked what the Zoning Commission is considering. Mr. Holger explained. Mr. Scheidler stated the variance should be granted as this situation is not her fault. Mr. Holger reiterated the complaint and compliance process, and further explained the purpose behind the case that is before the Zoning Commission. Mr. Scheidler stated that the responsibility of the construction of the deck should rest on the contractor that built the deck illegally, not on the original homeowner. Mr. Holger stated that the original homeowner applied for a permit for the deck and was denied in Mr. Dunn stated the issue is that the deck is nonconforming, and that issue transfers from owner to owner. Mr. Scheidler stated that the Zoning Commission is in the position to rectify the issue by granting the variance. Sue Basich, 5089 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, stated there is nothing wrong with the deck, and asked if the deck has been standing for this long, and it hasn t received any complaints, why is this an issue now. Mr. Holger explained that this request is handled the same way that any other minor modification is treated. He further explained that the deck is nonconforming and a complaint was filed, and the request is a minor modification to the zoning regulations. Mr. Holger also explained that looking at the aerial map of the vicinity, there are several other decks that are constructed outside of the minimum required 20 rear yard setback. Willard Baker, 5129 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, stated the house is at the beginning of the cul-de-sac and there is no way to build anything in the rear yard of the property. He stated that Ms. Miller had no idea that this deck was built illegally. He added that there should have been language added to the deed that indicated nothing could be built in the rear of the home for this lot. Lorraine Lott, 5105 Elk Meadows Court, Liberty Township, OH 45011, asked if the deck was considered to be grandfathered. She stated she was the listing agent for the original homeowner when they were looking to sell the home, and there is no way that those homeowners built that deck. She added that this is not Ms. Miller s fault. Mr. Juengling clarified the term grandfathered, and explained how the existing deck is not considered to be grandfathered because it did not obtain a permit prior to construction. 8

9 Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as an opponent of this case. Suzanne Chandler, 5105 Elk Run, stated that Ms. Miller had cut down bushes in Ms. Chandler s yard without her permission. She stated Ms. Miller asked if Ms. Chandler wanted the deck. Ms. Chandler stated the deck was a danger to her home because of the concern of a fire, and asked if that was the purpose of a variance. Mr. Juengling explained the purpose behind setback standards. Mr. Dobrozsi stated that the fire separation does bring about an interesting point, and is something to be considered. Ms. Chandler stated that the fire concern is the reason she filed the complaint. Mr. Holger asked if there was anyone to speak as a neutral party of this of this case. Ms. Miller stated she did receive Ms. Chandler s permission to cut down the bushes. Mr. Dobrozsi made a motion to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Ward seconded. Upon the call of the roll, the motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Holger explained the request before the Zoning Commission and summarized the testimony received during the hearing. He stated that each Zoning Commission should determine whether they feel there is a hardship regarding the request. Mr. Dunn asked if the minor modification is approved at 4, that means that the previously request sunroom could be constructed because that request was an 8 setback. Mr. Holger stated that is the case. Mr. Ward stated that the request is to reduce the setback to allow for the deck, not for the screened in patio. Mr. Juengling confirmed and stated if the Zoning Commission makes a motion to approve this case, they could make the motion that the approval is only for a deck. Mr. Holger asked if the applicant down the road wanted to build a sunroom, and they met the setback standard, would they need to come back for a minor modification. Mr. Juengling stated he believes they would as this request is specific to allowing the existing deck to remain. Mr. Dobrozsi asked if a time limit could be placed upon the approval. Mr. Dunn proposed the approval could be for this owner only. Mr. Juengling stated this would be a challenge to enforce, as the township is not notified each time a property changes ownership and that variances run with the land. Mr. Holger asked if this is approved, does it apply to any deck on the property. Mr. Juengling stated it depends on how the motion is worded and provided some example language to that effect. Mr. Ward asked how a new property owner would know this requirement. Mr. Juengling stated it would be on record with that property which would be seen any time an application for this property is filed with the township and explained scenarios of application submittal by a property owner. Mr. Holger added that this would be something that the property owner would have to disclose when they sell the home. Mr. Juengling clarified a point that was brought up earlier regarding who is responsible for the construction of the deck, whether it is the contractor or the homeowner. He stated it would be the homeowner s responsibility as the contractor cannot gain access to the property without the property owner s consent, and any code enforcement or property owner responsibilities falls on the property owner of record. Mr. Dunn asked Mr. Dobrozsi regarding the construction of the deck and any concerns regarding fire safety. Mr. Dobrozsi explained there are certain materials that are required and setbacks that prevent these concerns. Mr. Juengling stated that the construction methods are reviewed by the Butler County Building Department, which is an important reason why permits are necessary for decks. Mr. Dobrozsi stated this is 9

10 a valid point brought up by Ms. Chandler, though he is not concerned regarding the setback to Ms. Chandler s home. Mr. Holger stated the screened-in patio proposed in July was to be set back from the property line a distance of 8, and that this structure would need to be constructed to the proper material standards for fire protection. Mr. Juengling stated the items that zoning reviews, and the items that the Butler County Building Department reviews. Mr. Holger stated that regardless, the setback request is for the existing deck. Mr. Juengling stated that the request is to make this deck legal because there would be a variance/minor modification in place. He added that if the Zoning Commission desires any approval to be only for the existing deck, they can add that into their motion. The board deliberated about the possibility of the motion being for this deck specifically or for any replacement deck/structure. Mr. Dobrozsi asked staff if the board approves the request, as it is stated, would it just be for the existing deck. Mr. Juengling confirmed. Mr. Dobrozsi asked if board rotted and needed to be replaced, could they be replaced. Mr. Juengling stated this would be considered maintenance and repair that would make the structure safe, which would not require a permit. He added that if the deck was reduced in size, the deck could not be added back to without obtaining a Zoning Certificate. Mr. Dunn stated that the township would need to monitor the deck from here on out to ensure that the deck meets the Zoning Commission approval. Mr. Juengling confirmed and explained that process. Mr. Dobrozsi reiterated his interest in placing a time constraint on the approval. Mr. Holger stated his hesitation to this. Mr. Dobrozsi stated he would like to tie the approval to the current property owner s occupancy of the home. Mr. Ward stated that if Ms. Miller moves without tearing the deck down, then the issue would fall on the next property owner, and so on. Mr. Dunn stated he has a hard time approving a structure that is nonconforming that is already built. Mr. Holger stated he agrees, though it was not the current home owner that built the structure, which makes this situation unique. Mr. Dobrozsi stated he still believes there should be a time constraint based on home owner. Mr. Juengling explained that from a staff perspective, this would be a difficult condition to enforce since the township does not receive notification when a property changes ownership. He added that staff would have to check each time the parcels are updated to see if this property changed ownership. He stated that if the property does change ownership, and the deck is not removed, then the new property owner is now in the same position as the current owner. He stated he understands the purpose behind Mr. Dobrozsi s stance, and ultimately it is up to the Zoning Commission to determine any conditions, but it would be a challenge to enforce. Mr. Stater presented language that would allow the existing structure to remain as built, for the life of the existing structure. Mr. Holger stated that this would approve the existing deck and would not apply to any replacement deck, and if the deck was removed, they would need to come back for a Zoning Certificate for a replacement deck. Mr. Dobrozsi stated this seemed reasonable. Mr. Juengling stated this would be something that would be easier to enforce from a staff perspective and explained different scenarios in how this language would apply. Mr. Holger asked for a motion on this case. Mr. Stater made a motion to APPROVE Case ZC with the condition that the approval is for the life of the existing deck, and does not include any replacement deck. Mr. Dobrozsi seconded. Upon call of the roll: Mr. Dunn yes; Mr. Stater yes; Mr. Ward yes; Mr. Holger yes; Mr. Dobrozsi. The motion passed. 10

11 Mr. Holger called for the next item on the agenda of the approval of the meeting minutes from the July 17 th, 2017 meeting. Mr. Holger outlined the Zoning Commission members that were present for that meeting, and asked if anyone had any modifications. He then asked if there was a motion of approval. Mr. Dunn made a motion to APPROVE the meeting minutes from the July 17 th, 2017 Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Dobrozsi seconded. Upon call of the roll: Mr. Stater yes; Mr. Ward abstained; Mr. Holger yes; Mr. Dobrozsi yes; Mr. Dunn yes. The motion passed. Mr. Juengling indicated that the August meeting minutes were not yet completed, and the vote on this would need to occur at the October meeting. Mr. Holger asked if there was any other new business. Mr. Juengling stated there was one (1) application submitted for the October 16 th meeting agenda. Mr. Holger made a motion to ADJOURN ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. The motion passed unanimously and ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED. Respectfully submitted, Forrest Holger, Chairman Andy Juengling, Secretary 11