| Regular Meeting, Middletown, Ohio, Board of Zoning Appeals |
| Monday, January 4, 2010 10:02:38 AM - Middletown Ohio |
MINUTES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
MEMBERS Dan Picard ,Vice-Chair Bert Grimes
PRESENT: Byron Johnson Reva Owens
STAFF Martin D. Kohler, Planning Director
PRESENT: Linda Tong, Zoning Administrator
Call to Order:
Mr. Dan Picard called the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M. The roll was called by Ms. Tong. She stated that there was a quorum of four members present.
Approval of Minutes:
Mr. Picard asked for questions on the minutes of the September 2, 2009 meeting and none were heard. Mr. Grimes made a motion to approve as submitted and Mr. Johnson seconded. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Case No. 4-09, 2351 North Verity Parkway, Confirmation
Mr. Picard introduced the case. It is the confirmation of the decision of September 2, 2009 to approve four variances from Section 1272.04(c)(8) of the City of Middletown Zoning Ordinance of the requirements for number, surface area and height of menu boards to allow the installation of four menu boards; and to disapprove three variances from Section 1272.04(c)(5) of the requirement for maximum height of instructional signs to allow the installation of three instructional signs on the premises in a C-2 Roadside Commercial District and a C-1 Convenience Commercial District, as requested by Raymond Riska, McDonalds Corporation, representing the property owner at 2351 North Verity Parkway, Middletown, Ohio 45042. Mr. Picard called for a motion. Ms. Owens moved to approve the confirmation resolution, seconded by Mr. Grimes. The resolution was approved unanimously.
Case No. 5-09, 2340 Oxford State Road, Confirmation
Mr. Picard introduced the case. It is the confirmation of the decision of September 2, 2009 to approve with seven conditions the request of Mitchell A. DeZarn, of A-Tech Salvage and Towing, on behalf of property owner, Corwin L. Bryant, for a 300 foot variance from Section 1258.02(c)(6) of the City of Middletown Zoning Ordinance to allow the location of an automobile wrecking and junk yard on the property at 2340 Oxford State Road, Middletown, Ohio 45044 in an I-2 General Industrial District adjacent to a D-3 Medium Density Dwelling District. Mr. Picard called for a motion. Mr. Grimes moved to approve the confirmation resolution, seconded by Mr. Johnson. The resolution was approved unanimously.
Case No. 6-09, 6879 Hamilton Middletown Road, Public Hearing
Mr. Picard introduced the case. It is a request by the Truth Tabernacle Apostolic Church Inc., property owner, for a sign surface area variance of 12 square feet and a sign height variance of 3 feet 6 inches of Section 1272.04(c)(4) of the City of Middletown Zoning Ordinance to permit the installation of a free standing sign with a surface area of 52 square feet and a height of 8 feet 6 inches in the front yard of the premises in a D-1 Low Density Dwelling District. Mr. Picard addressed a question to the representative of the applicant, Ruthanne Hartman, Church Secretary. He said that the presence of only four BZA members requires that the vote be unanimous for variance approval. The applicant can choose to defer the hearing and decision
until more members are present. Ms. Hartman spoke and chose that the case be heard at this time.
Mr. Picard asked Mr. Kohler to describe the case. Mr. Kohler was sworn in by Mr. Picard, a notary public, before speaking. This is a request for a variance for a church in the D-1 District. A church is a permitted institutional use provided that it is on a major thoroughfare. This church was constructed prior to the area being annexed into the City of Middletown. Signs for institutional uses in D districts can be maximum 40 square feet surface area, 5 feet in height., 10 feet back from the right-of-way. The sign complies with the 10 foot setback. But the proposed sign is 52 square feet in surface area and 8’-6” in height; 30% larger and 70% taller than the maximums allowed. In granting a variance, the board asks the question, is this standard reasonable when applied to this situation? This standard is applied to all churches and other institutions throughout the city in residential zones. Signs that predate the zoning ordinance and do not conform to current standards may remain indefinitely as long as they are not damaged or
destroyed or removed by action of the owner. The original sign in this case was removed by the owner and replaced by the new sign. This new sign should conform to the current regulations. The idea is that over time eventually all signs will conform to current standards. In this case we look at unusual circumstances, such as oddly configured lots, or topographic conditions which prohibit view of a sign of standard size and location. From the pictures, this is a fairly ordinary scenario for a church: it is a fairly level site, plenty of Route 4 frontage, with clear visibility from Route 4.
This sign is existing; no zoning certificate, building or electrical permits were applied for. It was observed by an inspector during construction who issued a stop-work order. A proposed brick base has not been built yet because of the stop-work order. Mr. Picard asked for clarification of the definition of height: Is height measured from the ground? Mr. Kohler replied yes. Mr. Picard asked about distance from the road. Mr. Kohler
said that while we do not have an exact measure we do know that it is more than 10’ from the ROW. ROW is not the edge of pavement, but further back, approximately at the location of the power lines.
Mr. Grimes asked whether a factor in the applicant’s decision might have been a concern that a smaller sign could not be read from the road. Mr. Kohler responded that the sign could have been placed closer to the ROW than its present location. Mr. Johnson said that the sign appears to have been located further back from the ROW to enable drivers to see it from the curve in the road.
Mr. Picard invited members of the audience to come to the podium to speak in favor of the variance. Ruthanne Hartman was sworn in by Mr. Picard. She has been the Church Secretary since 1989. The new sign was placed in the same location as the old wooden sign which was dilapidated. The location and size were suggested by sign companies because of the curve and dip in the road. The new sign is about the same size as the old one.
Mr. Grimes asked if anyone has commented on the visibility of the sign. Ms. Hartman said she did not know the answer to that question. The sign was a gift. It was prefabricated. The electricity had already been run to the site well before the new sign was contemplated. Mr. Kohler gave the staff recommendation: We do not see unusual circumstances that warrant a larger and taller sign than allowed. Also just because it is existing (already installed) does not give it grounds for special consideration. That would encourage people to install oversize signs with the expectation of receiving a variance. A hardship case has not been made. We recommend that the variance be denied.
Mr. Picard said that he has always struggled to find a way to accommodate people but in this case he just does not see any unusual circumstances or hardship.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that having to take down and replace the sign will definitely create a hardship on a small church. Mr. Picard reiterated Mr. Kohler’s statement that granting the variance would encourage others to do the same. Mr. Johnson asked how long ago was the new sign installed. Ms. Hartman replied mid-August 2009. Mr. Kohler stated that the standards for individual commercial and office uses are similar. Larger developments such as shopping centers are allowed larger signs.
Mr. Picard called for a motion. Ms. Owens moved reluctantly to deny approval of the variance. Mr. Grimes seconded the motion because there is no evidence of hardship. The roll was called by Ms. Tong. The vote was unanimous for denial of the variance request.
Ms. Tong commented that she contacted the sign company which manufactured the sign to ask about the possibility of modifying the sing. The salesperson replied that it would be costly. It is unfortunate that this company did not advise the church about the regulations or the permit process.
Adjournment
With no further business, Ms. Owens moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Grimes. The vote was unanimous in favor of adjournment at 6:07 pm.
____________ _________________________________
Dan Picard Linda L. Tong
Vice-Chairman Secretary
|
| |
|
