LEGAL NOTICE. If you have any questions, you may also contact Marysville Zoning Administrator at (937) or

Engineering, Planning and Zoning City Hall, 209 S. Main Street Marysville, Ohio 43040-1641 (937) 645-7350 FAX (937) 645-7351 www.marysvilleohio.org LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing for the Board of Zoning Appeals in the City of Marysville. The Public Hearing will be held on August 21, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the second floor located at 209 S. Main Street, Marysville, Ohio 43040. 1. To hear a variance request to permit new minimum lot dimensions and setbacks for a new residential home vs the required A-R zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.10, for property located at 1270 Burkdale Drive. Filed by Phillip Morrison, Owner. 2. To hear a variance request to permit no sidewalk for two street frontages for a new residential home vs the required zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1139.26, for property located at 1270 Burkdale Drive. Filed by Phillip Morrison, Owner. 3. To hear a variance request to permit a new maximum percentage of lot to be occupied for a new residential home vs the required R-2 zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13, for property located at 650 Weaver Ridge Drive. Filed by Westport Homes, Owner. 4. To hear a variance request to permit a new minimum rear setback for a residential in-ground pool vs the required PUD zoning requirements for The Oaks subdivision, for property located at 881 Royal Oak Drive. Filed by Paul Bires, Owner. 5. Administrative discussion on Chapter 1129.12 & 1129.13 Variances. Copies of the above application are on file and may be viewed in the office of Engineering, Planning and Zoning, 209 S. Main Street, Marysville, Ohio 43040. If you have any questions, you may also contact Marysville Zoning Administrator at (937) 645-7359 or rtodd@marysvilleohio.org

City Hall, 209 S. Main Street Marysville, Ohio 43040-1641 (937) 645-7350 FAX (937) 645-7352 www.marysvilleohio.org BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA Monday, August 21, 2017 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 209 S. Main Street, 2 nd Floor CALL MEETING TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Carl Zani Richard Mickley Eric Moulton Mary Lou Ranney Jason Moore Barbara Taylor Scott Zwiezinski APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEMS: 1. To hear a variance request to permit new minimum lot dimensions and setbacks for a new residential home vs the required A-R zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.10, for property located at 1270 Burkdale Drive. Filed by Phillip Morrison, Owner. 2. To hear a variance request to permit no sidewalk for two street frontages for a new residential home vs the required zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1139.26, for property located at 1270 Burkdale Drive. Filed by Phillip Morrison, Owner. 3. To hear a variance request to permit a new maximum percentage of lot to be occupied for a new residential home vs the required R-2 zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13, for property located at 650 Weaver Ridge Drive. Filed by Westport Homes, Owner. 4. To hear a variance request to permit a new minimum rear setback for a residential in-ground pool vs the required PUD zoning requirements for The Oaks subdivision, for property located at 881 Royal Oak Drive. Filed by Paul Bires, Owner. 5. Administrative discussion on Chapter 1129.12 & 1129.13 Variances. COMMENTS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER: COMMENTS OF REQUESTER: COMMENTS OF CITIZENS: Citizen speaking is limited on comments to five minutes, unless written permission prior to the meeting. (If the chair feels that they would like to authorize them to speak another five minutes later in the item, they may allow them to do so). DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS: ADJOURNMENT:

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA MINUTES OF MEETING July 17, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Moulton, Dick Mickley, Scott Zwiezinski, Mary Lou Ranney, Carl Zani, Barbara Taylor, Jason Moore OTHERS PRESENT: City Zoning Administrator - Ron Todd, Engineering Clerk Amanda Dunnavant CITIZENS PRESENT: Kyle Stidam, Bill Keether, Michael Pistiolas, Frank Cipriano, Joe Coffey, Matt & Rhoda Jane Olmstead, Mallory Ingram, Anthony Will, Vernon Morrison MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from June 19th were approved as submitted AGENDA ITEMS: 1. To hear a variance request to permit a residential fence to extend past the rear corner of the main structure located on a corner lot vs the required zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1139.21, for property located at 505 Professional Pkwy. Filed by Joseph & Angel Coffey, Owner. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Mr. Todd explained the applicant is requesting a variance due to living on a corner lot and would like to extend the fence 32 ft. from the side of the house. It will not affect any sight distance. The City is in support of the variance. Comments of Requester: Joe Coffey presented the variance to the Board. Mr. Coffey stated he would like to utilize more of his backyard and that is why he is requesting the variance. The material will be wood and will be leaving it natural wood color. Comments of Citizens: Matt Olmstead, resident, is in support of the application. Discussion by BZA Members: Mr. Zani moved to approve the variance Question put, stood: Mr. Zwiezinski YES; Mr. Mickley YES; Ms. Ranney YES; Ms. Taylor YES; Mr. Zani YES; Mr. Moulton YES; Mr. Moore YES; The variance was approved as submitted 7-0. 2. To hear a variance request to permit additional square footage for an accessory structure vs the required zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1139.20, for property located at 1133 Toby Ct. Filed by Kyle Stidam, Owner. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Mr. Todd explained the applicant is asking for a variance due to his accessory structure exceeding 250 sq. ft. The shed is 278 sq. ft. The City is in support of the variance.

Comments of Requester: Kyle Stidam presented the variance to the Board. He stated he needed more storage space. He needed more room in his garage so he could put the cars in there. Comments of Citizens: Discussion by BZA Members: Mr. Moore moved to approve the variance, Question put, stood: Mr. Zwiezinski YES; Mr. Mickley YES; Ms. Ranney YES; Ms. Taylor Yes; Mr. Zani YES; Mr. Moulton YES; Mr. Moore YES; The variance was approved as submitted 7-0. 3. To hear a variance request to permit new minimum lot dimensions and setbacks vs the required R-2 zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13, for property located at 540 Mulberry Street. Filed by Ernest Jones (Nitro Custom Homes), Property Owner. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Comments of Requester: Applicant has requested to table the variance until August s BZA meeting. Comments of Citizens: Discussion by BZA Members: 4. To hear a conditional use request to permit low density multi-family buildings for the zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13 & 1137.14, for property located at parcel #2900030720000 & #2900030720009. Filed by William W. Keethler, Agent. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Mr. Todd stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use to permit low density multi-family buildings. The City has reviewed the conditional use request as proposed. Comments of Requester: Bill Keethler presented the conditional use to the Board. He stated it would be age targeting community with duplex s equipped with sidewalks, paved paths, gathering areas etc. Mr. Keethler stated they are not asking for any rezoning. Mr. Keethler stated they put a lot of lighting in the areas they develop and thinks it would help the area with more people watching and looking out their windows. Ms. Taylor asked who would be building the development. Mr. Keethler stated they would like the rental rate to be around $1300 and isn t a tax credit deal. Mr. Mickley asked how many units. Mr. Keethler stated there would be 60-65 units. The units would be 2 bedrooms and 1 car garage. Mr. Moulton has if there would be porches and garden areas. Mr. Keethler stated they would have a garden area and possibly a dog area. Comments of Citizens: Matt Olmstead, resident, is not sure if he is for or against the application and has some concerns. Mr. Olmstead has concerns with the trailer park behind the keystone crossing development and tenants that live there. They have had several car break in s and a purse has been stolen from a vehicle. Mr. Olmstead stated having a retirement community so close to these areas would present easier targets for the drug communities. He stated he is concerned with increased crime.

Discussion by BZA Members: Mr. Zani moved to approve the conditional use, Question put, stood: Mr. Zwiezinski NO; Mr. Mickley YES; Ms. Ranney NO; Ms. Taylor NO; Mr. Zani NO; Mr. Moulton YES; Mr. Moore NO; The conditional use was denied 2-5. 5. To hear a conditional use request to permit a single two unit residential building for the zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13, for property located at parcel #2900013250000. Filed by Vernon Morrison, Owner. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Mr. Todd stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use to permit a single two-unit residential building. The City has reviewed the conditional use as proposed. Comments of Requester: Anthony Will presented the conditional use to the Board. Mr. Will stated it wouldn t damage the viability and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Will showed pictures of the buildings surrounding the vacant lot. He stated it fits with the surrounding buildings. Mr. Zani had questions regarding the location of parking. Vernon Morrison stated they wanted to show examples on where the parking could go. The units will be 2 story and have crawl spaces. Mr. Zwiezinksi ask how much the rent would be. Mr. Morrison stated it would be from $700-$800. Comments of Citizens: Discussion by BZA Members: Ms. Taylor moved to approve the conditional use, Question put, stood: Mr. Zwiezinski NO; Mr. Mickley YES; Ms. Ranney YES; Ms. Taylor YES; Mr. Zani NO; Mr. Moulton YES; Mr. Moore YES; The conditional use was approved 5-2. 6. To hear a variance request to permit new minimum lot dimensions and setbacks vs the required R-2 zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13, for property located at parcel #2900013250000. Filed by Vernon Morrison, Owner. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Mr. Todd stated the applicant is requesting variance for a 66 ft. minimum lot width instead 70 ft. per code and 25 ft. front yard setback and per code a corner lot is 30 ft. and 6 ft side setbacks with a total of 15 ft the code requires you to have a minimum of 7.5 ft. side setbacks with a total of 17.5 ft. They are also requesting a 6 ft. rear setback we require 35 ft. and requesting a 5000 sq. ft. lot size per household our requirements are 9100 sq. ft. per household and are requesting an 800 sq. ft. per unit and we requirement 1200 sq. ft. per unit. Jeremy Hoyt, City Engineer, is in support of the variance. Comments of Requester: Anthony Will presented the variance to the Board. Comments of Citizens:

Discussion by BZA Members: Mr. Zwiezinski moved to approve the variance, Question put, stood: Mr. Zwiezinski YES; Mr. Mickley YES; Ms. Ranney YES; Ms. Taylor Yes; Mr. Zani YES; Mr. Moulton YES; Mr. Moore YES; The variance was approved as submitted 7-0. 7. To hear a conditional use request to permit a Home Occupation for the zoning requirements located in the codified ordinance Chapter 1137.13, for property located at 724 E. 6 th Street. Filed by Mallory Ingram, Owner. Comments of Zoning Inspector and/or City Planner: Mr. Todd stated the applicant is requesting to permit a conditional use to have a home based business and is also a moving business. The City has reviewed the application as proposed. Comments of Requester: Mallory Ingram presented the conditional use to the Board. She stated they bought an RV and brought it to the State of Ohio code to be able to run her business from the RV. It will be parked in her driveway when she isn t traveling. Ms. Ingram stated she can only have 2 clients at a time and there is commercial parking on the roads surrounding where she lives. The water comes from the City and the waste will be dumped by a septic company daily when she operates. She stated her neighbors are in support of what she would like to do. Comments of Citizens: Discussion by BZA Members: Mr. Moore moved to approve the conditional use, Question put, stood: Mr. Zwiezinski YES; Mr. Mickley YES; Ms. Ranney YES; Ms. Taylor YES; Mr. Zani YES; Mr. Moulton YES; Mr. Moore YES; The conditional use was approved 7-0. Administrative Discussion: Mr. Moulton wanted to know if the City as addressed the lack of affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Todd stated we are in the process of doing a comp plan that goes over all of that and stated Chad Flowers would be the one to discuss that. Mr. Todd stated the property values are going up which rent goes up as well. Ms. Taylor asked about the abandoned car wash and wanted to know the status. Mr. Todd stated they have located the actual owners and unfortunately as long as they are keeping it maintained the exterior our hands are tied. The County is over the building part. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Engineering, Planning and Zoning City Hall, 209 S. Main Street Marysville, Ohio 43040-1641 (937) 645-7350 FAX (937) 645-7351 www.marysvilleohio.org August 21, 2017 To: City of Marysville Board of Zoning Appeals Members From: Ron Todd Zoning Administrator RE: Planning Staff Report: 1270 Burkdale Drive. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: North: A-R (Agricultural Residential District) South: R-1 (Low Density Residential District) East: A-R (Agricultural Residential District) West: A-R (Agricultural Residential District) Zoning Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting 2 variance request: 1. Per chapter 1137.10 (A-R), the applicant is requesting new minimum lot setbacks. 35 ft. front yard setback facing Burkdale Dr. 10 ft. side yard setback 2. Per chapter 1139.26, the applicant is requesting no sidewalks for each street frontage. 1139.26 SIDEWALKS FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. All newly constructed residential dwelling units shall have sidewalks installed along all existing public streets if sidewalks do not presently exist. Sidewalks shall be constructed according to the minimums set forth in the Standard Construction Drawings of the City. (Ord. 7-14. Passed 3-13-14.) Planning & Zoning Code: 1137.10, 1139.26 ****************************************************************************** Staff recommendations; Staff has reviewed the 1st variance request and is in support of the request. Staff has reviewed the 2nd variance request and is not in support of the request. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (937) 645-7359 or via email at rtodd@marysvilleohio.org

Upper Arlington Part 11, Article 4.09 (D) Standards for approval: The following factors shall be considered and weighed by BZAP in determining practical difficulty or hardship: 1. Whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable generally to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. Examples of such special conditions or circumstances are: exceptional irregularity, narrowness, shallowness, or steepness of the lot, or adjacency to nonconforming and inharmonious uses, structures, or conditions; 2. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; 3. Whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land or structures; 4. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance; 5. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water, sewer, and trash pickup; 6. Whether special conditions or circumstances exist as a result of actions of the current or a previous owner; 7. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be resolved through some method other than a variance; 8. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting a variance; and/or 9. Whether the granting of the variance requested will confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this regulation to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.

Hilliard Section 1106.04 Variances: a. The Board shall have the power to authorize variances from the provisions or requirements of this Zoning Code if in the public interest. In authorizing a variance, the Board may attach conditions and require such guarantee or bond as it may deem necessary to assure compliance with the objectives of this code and any conditions of approval. b. The Board's power to grant variances from the dimensional provisions of the zoning code shall be in harmony with the intent and purposes of the code, as provided below. 1. Variance Standards. Variances from the terms of the code shall be granted only where the applicant shows that the strict application of a zoning requirement causes practical difficulties in the use of the property. The factors to be considered and weighed by the Board in determining whether a property owner has encountered practical difficulties in the use of the property include, but are not limited to: A. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; B. Whether the variance is substantial; B. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; D. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water distribution, sanitary sewer collection, electric distribution, storm water collection, or refuse collection; E. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction; F. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance; G. Whether the existing conditions from which a variance is being sought were self-created; and H. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.

2. The Board shall determine, after weighing the factors described above and any other factors the Board deems relevant, whether the property owner has shown practical difficulties so inequitable as to justify granting a variance. Worthington Section: 1129.05 (c) Variances: Area Variances. The Board shall have the power to hear and decide appeals and authorize variances from the provisions or requirements of this Zoning Ordinance. In authorizing a variance, the Board may attach conditions and require such guarantee or bond as it may deem necessary to assure compliance with the objective of this Zoning Ordinance. The Board may grant a variance in the application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when it is determined that practical difficulty exists based on the following factors: 1. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; 2. Whether the variance is substantial; 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g. water, sewer, garbage). 5. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction; 6. Whether the property owner s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance; and, 7. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.

Canal Winchester Section 1147.03 All relevant factors including but not limited to the following considerations shall be examined in the review, public hearing, and approval of an application for a variance: (a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. (b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Zoning Code. (c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Zoning Code to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. (e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare. (f) That the granting of the variance is not solely based upon the showing that the property could be put to better economic use than presently permitted by zoning regulations. (g) That the granting of the variance will not permit a use that is otherwise not permitted within the respective zoning district.

City of Powell Section: 1127.06 Standards for Variance: (e) Narrative statements and supporting documentation establishing and substantiating that the variance conforms to each of the following standards: 1. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property; 2. Whether the variance is substantial; 1. Whether the character of the neighborhood would be adversely affected or whether adjoining properties would suffer an adverse impact as a result of the variance; 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage); 2. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction; 3. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance; and 4. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. (f) No single factor shall be considered a determinative factor, and the factors shall be weighed and balanced in determining whether a variance is warranted. The applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the criteria for a variance is warranted. The applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the criteria for a variance have been met and that the application of the zoning requirement to the applicant's property would be inequitable.

City of Westerville Section: 1113.03 (a) The following factors shall be considered and weighed in the review and the public hearing of an application for variance. 1. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without a variance; 2. Whether the variance is substantial; 3. Whether the character of the neighborhood would be adversely affected or whether adjoining properties would suffer an adverse impact as a result of the variance; 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage); 5. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction; 6. Whether the property owner s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance; and 7. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. (b) No single factor shall be considered a determinative factor, and the factors shall be weighed and balanced in determining whether a variance is warranted. The applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the criteria for a variance have been met and that application of the zoning requirement to the applicant s property would be inequitable.