Members Absent: None

Staff Members: William Lutz, Devon Alexander, Stacy Wall

Attendees: Mr. Jerry Voisnet, Mr. David McMillan

Chairman Fashner noted that William Lutz, Development Program Manager was present for Mr. Schmiesing.

MEETING MINUTES

Mr. Jenkins moved to approve the minutes as written. Mrs. Franz seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, the minutes were approved; 5 aye, 0 nay.

INTRODUCTIONS

Chairman Fashner welcomed Mrs. Stacy Wall, Law Director of the City of Piqua to the meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

1. Resolution BZA 09-07

A petition to variance the minimum setback requirement of fifty (50) feet in an industrial district located across the street from a one-family residential district and to allow a gravel parking surface with a setback of thirty-four (34) feet from the front lot line.

Mr. Lutz provided an overview of the agenda item by way of a Power Point presentation that illustrated the conditions found at the subject parcel and the affected neighborhood.

Mr. Lutz provided a recommendation to the Board from Mr. Schmiesing that the variance be denied for the following reasons:

1. No peculiar exceptions, and unusual circumstances in connection with this specific parcel have been identified

2. The code provisions do not preclude the property owner from enjoying a reasonable use of the land

3. The cost to make an improvement in accordance with adopted community standards is not considered a hardship

Mr. Jerry Voisnet, 450 Garbry Road, Piqua, owner of the property in question, spoke in favor of the request.

Mr. Voisnet stated that he felt that his property was forty-four (44) feet from the lot line and not thirty-four (34) as presented by Mr. Lutz.

Mr. Lutz stated that on Mr. Voisnet's plan, the forty-four (44) foot measurement was taken from the curb, not the front property line, which do not lie on the same plane.

Ms. Stumpff commented that she felt that there may be a technical problem with the mapping provided in Mr. Lutz's presentation, as the lot lines do not appear to match correctly and that it does not clearly show where the starting point for the setback should exist.

[Note - The proposed setback requested was 44 feet from the curb line. This equaled a 34 foot setback from the property line. For code enforcement purposes setbacks are measured to property lines, not curbs. Thus, the resolution and presentation material presented to the BZA referenced the setback to the property line not the curb].

Mr. Reindel asked if meeting the required fifty (50) foot setback would be a problem.

Mr. Voisnet stated that cutting off six (6) feet from the project would not be detrimental; however, cutting off sixteen (16) feet would be a problem.

Mr. Reindel asked if the dust-free surface is the most important issue.

Mr. Jenkins stated that he felt that there is a community-wide need for this surface and stated that Mr. Voisnet is trying to address a parking need, as required by new parking rules adopted by the city.

Ms. Stumpff asked about what the future plans for the property would be. Mr. Voisnet stated that he envisions the property to remain as a storage facility for at least the next five years.

Ms. Stumpff and Mr. Reindel stated that they felt the property was maintained in very good condition.

Chairman Fashner also stated that he felt the property is in very good condition and that concrete or asphalt is not a conducive surface for this business.

Mr. Jenkins presented a motion to adopt the resolution as presented. Ms. Stumpff seconded the motion. The following vote was recorded: Mr. Jenkins, Aye; Chairman Fashner, Aye; Ms. Stumpff, Aye; Ms. Franz, Aye; Mr. Reindel, Aye. Resolution BZA 09-07 was declared adopted.

2. Resolution BZA 10-07

An appeal of an action taken by the code official in the administration and enforcement of the land use code, concerning the property located at Ash Street and Spring Street in Piqua.

Mr. Lutz introduced Mr. Devon Alexander, the city's code enforcement official, who provided location and zoning information.

Mr. Alexander outlined the timeline of events surrounding this particular issue and provided an overview of the agenda item by way of a Power Point presentation that illustrated the conditions found at the subject parcel.

Mr. Alexander recommended the board deny this appeal for the following reasons:

1. The subject sign clearly meets the definition of portable sign

2. The sign code clearly prohibits this sign type under the described circumstances

3. The subject sign is clearly in violation the Piqua code of ordinances

Mr. David McMillan spoke in opposition of the resolution. Mr. McMillan claimed that since his property is on three separate parcels that he should be allowed to have more signage. Mr. McMillan also felt that since downtown businesses could have portable signs, his inability to have such signs puts his business at a competitive disadvantage.

Chairman Fashner inquired who filed the original complaint on the property. Mr. Alexander stated that two complaints were received. One complaint was anonymous and the other came from a city employee.

Chairman Fashner also inquired if the picture provided members of the board was taken the same day the complaint was received. Mr. Alexander could not confirm that the picture was taken on the same day the complaint was received.

Mr. Jenkins asked if a violation notice was issued to the property owner. Mr. Alexander stated that a copy of the violation notice was provided in the packets provided to the members of the Board.

Ms. Stumpff stated that she believed that there are three parcels, not three lots and added that the zoning code did not provide clear guidance on whether there are three lots or three parcels, in a technical sense.

Mr. Jenkins felt that the portable sign issue has caused there to be two different sets of sign standards throughout the community.

Ms. Franz responded that the portable signs were needed in the downtown area since most of the signage in the downtown area could not be read by those walking or traveling down the street.

Mr. Jenkins stated that he felt that the same situation at this location occurs in other places throughout the community.

Mr. Jenkins presented a motion to table the resolution for up to sixty (60) days to get clarification on the lot issue. The motion was seconded by Ms. Stumpff.

Chairman Fashner stated that he felt it was unnecessary to table the issue further.

The following vote was recorded: Mr. Jenkins, Aye; Chairman Fashner, Nay; Ms. Stumpff, Aye; Ms. Franz, Aye; Mr. Reindel, Aye. Resolution BZA 10-07 was declared tabled.

OTHER BUSINESS

3. Code of Ethics.

Mr. Jenkins stated that he felt that the term "non-confidential" in Section A.5. of the Code of Ethics needed further clarification.

Mr. Jenkins also stated it would be difficult for the Board of Zoning Appeals to implement Section B.1. of the Code of Ethics since he felt that in an earlier Board meeting the City Manager had directed how Board members need to vote on particular issues.

Chairman Fashner stated that the Board should not be a "rubber stamp", but rather review each case on its own individual merits.

Mr. Jenkins recommended that no action be taken until further discussions with staff.

4. Miscellaneous Comments.

There was a discussion concerning the importance of the board members independently reviewing the cases that come before the BZA.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to conduct Mr. Jenkins presented a motion to adjourn. Ms. Stumpff seconded the motion. A voice vote indicated that the motion passed. The Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

Links marked with are in the *.pdf file format, which requires that Adobe Acrobat Reader be installed on your system. If you do not have Acrobat Reader, you can obtain a free copy from the Adobe web site by clicking the "Get Acrobat Reader" button below.