DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
6:30 PM -
SEPTEMBER 11th, 2008
MINUTES
CALL TO
ORDER James Rinehart
ROLL
CALL
Board
Members: Brian Leary, James Klatte, James Rinehart, Greg
Porta, and
Alternate William Lantry were present
Absent: Mike Kean
Staff
Present: Lois McKnight, Hayfaa Wadih, Marilyn Arnold
Also present was township
attorney, Joe Walker.
James Rinehart asked for those in attendance to pause
for a moment of silence due to the anniversary of September 11,
2001.
Motion
by James Klatte and second by Brian Leary for the board to go into
Executive Session. The vote was all Ayes.
Motion
by Brian Leary and second by James Klatte to come back into Regular
Session. The vote was all Ayes.
Joe Walker, township attorney, administered the oath
to those giving testimony.
Motion
Motion by Greg Porta and
second by James Klatte to approve minutes of 08/14/08
including adding the word “non” on Page 3
paragraph 6, as suggested by Greg Porta.
The vote was as follows:
Ayes:
Brian Leary, James Klatte, Greg
Porta, & William Lantry
Abstained: James Rinehart
Absent: Mike Kean
Case 2008-300 Saturn of Kings
Automall ,
9536 Kings
Auto Mall Road Requesting Variance to Section
22.10 B.1.a.(i) and 22.10 B.1.c., 22.02 D. and 22.05
D.
Staff Report Hayfaa
Wadih said the application is a request for a variance to the zoning
resolution. She said the applicant is proposing to put a new “Sky
Box” wall sign with a red “Horizons” arch to accent the building
entrance to the showroom and lessen the effect of a box-life
building. Applicant is trying to create a new image and this change
will be done throughout the country at the Saturn Dealerships.
Applicant said the 160 feet setback from the road makes it difficult
to be visible or differentiated from other adjacent car dealerships.
Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution (DTRZ) permit
one wall mounted sign and one ground mounted sign in the General
Business (G-B) District. Also, the Resolution does not permit the
sign to be higher than the wall on which it is erected. She quoted
the four standards for variance and provided the applicant’s
explanation of meeting the standards for a variance. She asked for
questions from the board. Jim Klatte asked her if the drawing
accurately depicts the proposed sign. Ms. Wadih said there is a
drawing showing measurements in the board’s packet. Brian Leary
asked her if the 80 square feet old sign was in compliance. Ms.
Wadih said that sign was approved previously but not under the
current staff.
Proponent
Darrell Russell, 1817
Hollybrook Drive,
Burlington, KY,
said they have not made any significant changes to the building in
17 years. He said Saturn is doing this all across the country. He
asked the board to view the photo and notice how difficult it is to
see their building. The structure is small and they hope the
Horizon arch and sky box would accentuate it and add a lot of visual
that would make it more noticeable in the auto mall. He said they
are looking forward to making these changes.
Mike Cassedy, Atlantic Sign Company, 769 Ice Lane,
Burlington, KY,
said this is a national program from Saturn, and the auto industry
is not doing too well at this time. He said they want to add “pop”
to their building. They are trying to keep their businesses going
and this is one of the least expensive ways to give the building a
new look. He said he realizes that when one business is allowed to
make a change, the rest may come and seek the same allowances.
James Klatte told him that they take these cases as individual
cases. James Rinehart said each case is looked at on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. Cassedy said he worked with La-Z-Boy to give them a
better look.
Mr. Cassedy gave the example that if he would apply
to do a remodel of the building changing the roofline and putting a
clock in the sky box, that remodel would most likely be allowed. He
was trying to make the point that the box with clock would be
allowed but the box with a logo in it would not. Greg Porta told
him the problem is because the box is higher than the roofline.
Brian Leary said if the box would be lower than the roofline
there would not be a problem. Mr. Cassedy asked if he raised the
arch up to be as high as the Shadow Box would that help? Greg Porta
said it would help if the arch could go to the same level as the top
of the sign. Mr. Cassedy said he was trying to establish where the
roofline is. Mr. Cassedy talked about lighting. He explained that
Sky Box will illuminate electronically changing colors from yellow
to belu to green over a 20 minute period. Back behind the sign is
where the indirect lighting is located and he called it a “halo”
affect. Greg Porta said he would like to hear from the store
manager. Greg asked him if the parapet wall could be brought up to
the height of the box.
Darrell Russell, 1817 Hollybrook Drive, Burlington,
KY,
said the parts for the new design are already built for locations
across the country but he would be willing to see if it could be
done. He said he was willing to ask them and see if he can raise
the wall. He said they really do want this project completed.
Greg Porta said should we consider that horizon / arch the parapet
wall. Mr. Russell explained the way the sign is made and talked
about whether it could be changed. James Klatte said is it feasible
that the sky box could be set lower. James Klatte asked him about
some of the construction on the sign which is already completed.
Mr. Russell explained that the iron poles go into the ground and
attach on the top but he said he didn’t know if it could be made to
be lower.
William Yusko, 2845 Ridge Avenue, Hebron, KY,
said he recently installed one of these at another Saturn. He went
on to explain how he put it together. He said the changes could be
done but it would look different from the other Saturns around the
country.
William Yusko, 2845 Ridge Avenue, Hebron, KY,
Brian Leary asked if the parapet is independent of the sign and he
asked for more details about the way it would be installed.
Mr. Yusko said the box is separate from the parapet wall and he
explained how are technically attached. He said the sign sits
separately on the torsion tube. On the back side there are two
bolts. The sign is independently on the steel beam. Joe Walker
cited the definition of sign from the Zoning Resolution; under the
definition section under 3.118 Signs and measurements thereof the
last sentence says “frames and borders not being advertising matters
shall not be included in the service area.” Greg Porta asked if we
had determined how far over the parapet wall it extends. Ms. Wadih
said no. Mr. Yusko said about three feet.
Mike Cassedy, Atlantic Sign Company, 769 Ice Lane,
Burlington, KY,
came back to talk. Brian Leary asked him how long is the red
horizon area and how high. The conclusion was that the arch/horizon
section is about 9 feet wide and 6 feet high.
Joe Walker said a logo is considered a sign. Greg
Porta said this dealership is not that visible. He said he didn’t
have a problem with this sign. Brian Leary said he would make a
motion to approve the sign. Lois McKnight said they need to
determine that they have met the standards for variance. Joe Walker
said what Greg Porta just said speaks to the first two findings of
fact. James Klatte said they haven’t addressed the lighting issue.
Brian Leary was interested in an architectural drawing showing
measurements and size of everything. James Rinehart said would they
have to show those measurements when they submit for a zoning
permit? Lois said yes a zoning permit would be necessary and
measurements would be shown. Greg Porta said if the arch/horizon is
considered a parafit wall, there is no problem. James Klatte said
we need to suggest they work with staff. Lois said we need to find
that the 4 standards for variance have been met.
Motion
Greg Porta made a motion seconded by James Klatte to approve the
variance in Case 2008-300 with findings as follows:
1.
The subject property setback is 160 feet from the
right of way which makes visibility hard.
2.
The existing sign square footage is basically under
what the Zoning Resolution permits.
3.
Approving the additional sign will not have an
adversary impact on the surroundings properties.
4.
No additional square footage is requested over what
the Zoning Resolution permits; therefore, approving the additional
sign does not violate the spirit and intent of Deerfield Township
Zoning Resolution.
The motion was approved on the following
vote:
Ayes Brian Leary, James Klatte,
Greg Porta, James Rinehart ,and William Lantry
Abstain None
Absent Mike Kean
Mr. Rinehart excused himself from the meeting since
he had a former personal relationship to the people involved in this
case. He asked for a motion to elect a temporary Chairperson.
Motion
by Brian Leary and second by James Klatte to elect Greg Porta as a
temporary Chairperson. The vote was all Ayes.
Greg Porta asked if other persons have come in, and
if they needed to be sworn in. There were none. He said the public
portion of the meeting was closed last month. He said we will be
hearing a staff report from Mr. Clark and then we will go from
there.
Continued…...
Case
2008-226 Administrative Appeal of Zoning Violation
Notice at R-SF Property,
4135
Socialville-Fosters Road, Owned by Jeff Stauffer.
Jeff Stauffer asked about the number of people
present on the board tonight and asked that the case not be heard
tonight but be heard next month. The board told him the vote would
have to be 3 yes to approve. Greg Porta said since we are listening
for evidence that there was prior approval for activity on the
property previous to Deerfield Township having zoning in 1997, he
thought the board should go ahead and hear the case. Joe Walker
said this board is free to move forward. The board agreed to go
ahead with the case.
Staff Report:
Matt Clark
reviewed the location of the property and the actions to date to
recap the August 14, 2008 BZA meeting. Mr. Clark reiterated Mr.
Stauffer’s claim that his uses are legally nonconforming based upon
his date of ownership in 1988 under the Warren County Rural Code.
Mr. Clark stated that he investigated the pertinent requirements of
the 1988 effective Warren County Rural Zoning Code, and concluded
that Mr. Stauffer’s activity was no more allowed under that code as
it is present code. There was no evidence that the Warren County
Rural Zoning authority had given approval to Mr. Stauffer to operate
his business from his home on R-1 zoned land. Mr. Clark again
offered his conclusions, determinations and summations to the Board,
with photographs offered for review on the overhead. Mr. Clark
asked for questions from the Board. Brian Leary asked if the Warren
County Code was pretty similar to the current code? Mr. Clark said
yes.
Proponent: Jeff Stauffer,
4135
Socialville-Fosters Road,
said he looked for some old photos which would show
that he was conducting his business from that location in 1988. He
said he doesn’t need photos for proof because he did have the
business at that time. He presented some documentation showing
where he had purchased some equipment with dates showing that they
were from the 1980’s. He said the nursery stock was a legal
purchase for his property and his equipment was used for that. Mr.
Stauffer said he didn’t feel that his business was a problem all
these 20 years until there was a complaint in July. He reminded
this board that Natorp and others are doing the same thing. He said
there are other neighbors here tonight who have no problem with his
business. He said the business was existing all of this time before
the neighbor made the complaint. He said he went to Warren County
and they told him Tim Hershner removed all of the files that Warren
County had relating to Deerfield Township and brought them to the
township. Mr. Stauffer restated Bob Craig’s (WCRPC) claim that all
but the 1986 aerial photography should have been in Deerfield
Township’s possession. Mr. Stauffer offered history of a case for
William Wallace allowing sales of firewood prior to Deerfield
Township Zoning. That case came before Warren County Zoning and
then later Mr. Wallace received approval from Deerfield Township for
a PUD zoning which allowing firewood sales.
Greg Porta said the nursery stock and feeder calves
weren’t an issue but the illegal sign brought the first attention to
your property. Brian Leary asked if he had any documentation from
Warren County Rural Zoning saying he was allowed to have this
business at his home prior to Deerfield Township Zoning. Mr. Leary
said that this is what this board is looking for, to enable you to
present your case. Mr. Porta asked Mr. Stauffer if he had spoken to
Mr. Craig at Warren County, to ask if he would have been allowed to
conduct his business. Mr. Porta said an inspector driving down the
road would not have noticed what was going on since the activity is
so far back from the street. James Klatte said you have not proven
to us that this business was allowed by Warren County. Mr. Leary
said we would need to see some documentation from the county
verifying that you were allowed to do this and you would have gone
to Warren County and sought permission from them many years ago.
Mr. Lantry addressed Mr. Stauffer in saying that he would have been
an active participant in getting this permission from the county,
and no one would have done it without Mr. Stauffer’s prompting. Mr.
Lantry continued in saying that it was shown last month at the BZA
meeting that the township held off enforcement at the time, but when
the an official complaint came from an adjoining neighbor, that is
what brought the attention to the property.
Mr. Walker said the code sets forth what is permitted
under the designated use. Staff has determined that the property is
in violation of the code. It is on the applicant to prove that an
exception ought to be made. Unless there is evidence presented that
he was a legal nonconforming use or that some type of permit was
issued from the township or county at some former time, I don’t
believe that the staff has abused their discretion in saying that he
was outside his permitted use.
Mr. Porta asked him if he had anything else to
present. Mr. Stauffer said the township was well aware that the
mulch business was going on. He said he received notices regarding
the sign. Mr. Stauffer said on the photos he had last time you
could see the mulch pile. Mr. Leary said that 10 years ago if this
was discovered there would have been the same problem then.
Mr. Stauffer asked why staff doesn’t do anything
about other abuses in the township. Mr. Klatte said this board
looks at each case individually. Mr. Klatte asked him is he had any
kind of legal documentation. Mr. Stauffer said so the board did not
need to see receipts or photos. Mr. Porta said the Board wanted to
establish that Mr. Stauffer had prior permission to have the
business. Mr. Porta continued that Mr. Stauffer proved that he had
businesses and equipment on site prior to our code, but did not
prove that he had permission from Warren County to legally operate
it from the property.
Proponent: Jack Stauffer,
4135
Socialville-Fosters Road,
asked why if some of the businesses on their property are considered
agricultural, why are they not allowed to keep the equipment there?
Mr. Leary said you stated in the last meeting that you are using the
equipment for your construction business. Mr. Porta said the
track-hoe is used for construction, not agriculture. Mr. Stauffer
continued stating that they have agriculture use. Jack Stauffer
wanted to have more public comments. Mr. Porta replied that, at the
last meeting there was a time allowed for public comments and the
public could have spoken. Mr. Klatte directed to Jack Stauffer,
that there was no public comment component to a BZA hearing, but
rather a proponent and opponent portion. Mr. Porta restated that
they’d already closed public comment portions of the hearing last
time.
Mr. Leary said the proponent didn’t establish that
there was permission from the county. Mr. Porta said Mr. Stauffer
did not prove that. Mr. Lantry said he is operating some
agriculture business there. Mr. Porta said they are appealing
whether Deerfield Township Staff was in error in the way they
enforced their code. That is the question. Mr. Porta continued,
that the Stauffers were unable to prove to the Board that they were
a legal non-conformance. Now we have to decide or whether the
township has enforced the code without error and Mr. Porta said in
his opinion they have done that.
Motion
James Klatte made a motion and seconded by Brian Leary to deny
Administrative Appeal 2008-226.
The motion was carried on the following
vote:
Ayes: Brian Leary, James Klatte,
Greg Porta, and William Lantry
Abstain: None
Absent: Mike Kean and James Rinehart
Mr. Klatte asked staff and counsel if there is
anything that Mr. Stauffer could do to work with the township. Mr.
Walker said a separate meeting with staff and counsel would be
appropriate if Mr. Stauffer wants to meet.
New Business
Hayfaa Wadih
said there are no cases so far for next month. Lois McKnight
reminded the board they have new Zoning Resolution books.
Adjourn Motion
by James Klatte and second by Greg Porta to adjourn. The vote was
all Ayes.
__________________________________________
____________________________________________
Greg Porta, Acting Chair Person
Date James Rinehart,
Secretary Date
H G K BZA09_11_08.MIN
|
