►
From YouTube: Athens Board Of Zoning Appeals March 10, 2020
Description
Athens Board Of Zoning Appeals March 10, 2020
A
Good
evening
this
is
a
meeting
of
the
Athens
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals.
That
time
is
703
p.m.
and
the
date
is
Tuesday
March
10
2020.
At
this
time,
I
will
call
the
meeting
to
order.
The
board
consists
of
five
members
and
two
alternates,
the
alternates
taking
full
part
in
the
discussions
and
becoming
a
voting
member
in
the
absence
of
a
member
or
when
a
member
of
stains
for
conflict
of
interest.
A
President
tonight,
our
members
miss
Lisa,
Carlson,
miss
Kate,
Owsley
and
alternates
are
Aaron
Thomas
and
mr.
Robert
Dulac,
and
unless
we
have
one
more
member
attending,
both
of
you
will
be
voting.
Members
tonight
also
present
our
Zoning
Administrator
mr.
David
Riggs
secretary
mr.
Paul
issue
in
Parker,
and
we
are
also
pleased
to
have
MS
Lisa
Eliason,
the
law
director,
who
will
be
providing
a
training
for
us
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
at
this
time.
I
invite
you
to
view
on
the
rules
and.
D
E
B
C
A
A
Do
we
need
to
take
a
vote
on
that
leave
a
message?
Okay,
so
that
would
be
at
the
end
of
our
presentation
tonight.
The
board
is
required
to
take
testimony
on
their
oath.
Would
anyone
wishing
to
speak
concerning
any
items
on
the
agenda?
Please
stand:
do
you
swear
or
affirm
that
any
testimony
you
will
present
the
board
will
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
Thank
you
be
seated.
Please.
A
A
A
F
A
Okay,
but
mr.
Trent
de
Bruin
is
listed
as
the
appellant
for
this
meeting.
Appellant
is
requesting
a
variance
from
a
CC
23
1001
table
a
a
schedule
of
mall
controls
to
allow
remodeling
of
buildings
resulting
in
44%
building
lot
coverage
where
40%
building
lot
coverage
is
the
maximum
allowed
the
code
office
or
mr.
eshton
barker.
A
D
Go
ahead,
yes,
I
want
to
say
well,
of
course,
when
we
go
through
these,
were
there
two
different
kinds
of
lot
coverage:
there's
the
building
lot
coverage,
which
is
just
the
buildings
themselves,
accessory
structures
and
stuff
total
lot
coverage
is
the
buildings
plus
anything,
that's
pain.
Okay,
with
this
thing
with
the
additions
they
want
to
add
that
puts
the
building
lock
coverage
over
44
percent.
The
total
lock
coverage
will
be
at
60,
which
is
the
maximum
allowed,
so
the
only
variance
they
need
is
for
the
building
locked,
okay,.
A
D
A
F
F
F
The
structure
in
question
has
three
apartments,
two
of
which
use
that
front
shared
entrance
that
you
see
the
improvement
that
we're
talking
about
the
primary
area.
The
balcony
area
is
approximately
a
4
foot
by
10
foot
area.
We've
proposed
adding
a
lower
in
a
upper
balcony,
so
two
of
the
apartments
that
use
the
shared
entrance
each
apartment
would
have
a
balcony
coming
off
of
its
livingroom
area.
F
We
are
also
proposing
reciting
the
entire
house,
with
cement
fiber
board,
siding
as
well
during
the
process
we're
asking
to
achieve
what
the
majority
of
our
neighbors
have,
which
is
a
covered
exterior
area,
a
porch
balcony
area
like
the
beta
house,
that's
adjacent
to
us
in
there
and
surrounding
properties
across
from
us.
The
majority
of
those
are
houses
that
have
been
converted
to
some
sort
of
living
quarters,
all
of
which
have
the
majority
of
which
have
porches
on
the
front
of
them.
F
And
I
wanted
to
note
that
the
majority
of
the
properties
on
that
particular
block
based
upon
appearance
from
what
I
was
looking
at,
are
also
non-conforming
and
regarding
to
coverage.
We
basically
they're
concrete
from
front
to
back
very
little
green
space.
We
actually
surprisingly,
have
more
green
space
than
what
our
neighbors
do.
In
my
opinion,
this
property
by
its
very
nature,
is
definitely
non-conforming.
There
are
actually
three
structures
on
this
one
particular
parcel
and
a
parking
lot.
F
It
wraps
from
Congress
Street
all
the
way
to
to
High
Street
and
in
working
with
Trent
de
Bruin
with
ESWC
architects.
We
thought
the
proposed
design
was
the
least
invasive
and
the
most
aesthetically
pleasing
to
achieve
what
we're
trying
to
do,
which
is
add
that
outside
living
space
that
we
currently
just
don't
have
and
the
intent
of
the
work
is
to
add
value
not
only
to
that
property,
but
also
to
the
community.
F
Actually
I'm
kind
of
confused
that
it
was
that
significant,
but
I
know
everyone
has
different
calculations
on
how
they
approach
things.
So
I
was
really
going
to
question
that
four
foot
by
10
foot
area
that
that
I'm
speaking
of
is
basically
the
footprint
of
the
balcony
and
in
all
reality,
if
you
were
out
if
we
on
the
site
today,
you
would
see
that
there
is
a
actually
a
very
large
overhang
of
the
existing
building
and
it's
approximately
including
the
gutters
about
two
feet.
So
really
what
we're
doing
is
only
extending
away
from
the
building.
F
We
are
extending
that
four
feet
approximately,
but
really
we're
only
extending
two
feet
beyond
the
overhang
of
the
actual
structure.
So
this
is
a
very
minimal
enhancement
and
we're
also
proposing
replacing
the
existing
front
porch
stoop,
that
is
a
common
used
entranceway
and
it's
simply
not
large
enough
for
use
in
practicality
of
any
type
of
outside
enjoyment.
For
for
the
current
tenants
and
then
the
third.
The
third
part
that
you
can
see
I
think
it
is
labeled
as
number
three
is
a
simple
overhang
for
apartment
number,
three
very
minimal,
and
it's
actually
there's
concrete.
F
G
F
H
E
F
A
F
A
A
H
H
A
A
A
A
A
This
position
of
the
menace
from
December
10
2009
teen,
meeting
yeah.
That
was
a
year
ago
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
there
was
none.
Was
there
anything
mr.
Aschenbach
word
that
Dania
was
contacted
you
regarding
any
changes,
so
need
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
of
March
or
December
of
2019
I
move.
A
C
A
I
You
I
appreciate
the
invitation
to
attend.
I
know:
I've
talked
with
you
before
about
public
records
law,
the
Sunshine
Law
and
I've,
provided
you
with
two
handouts:
the
handouts.
First,
one
is
Ohio
sunshine
law
and
Ohio
Ethics
in
a
second
it
just
as
entitled
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
training,
November
20
19.
We
try
to
do
this
back
in
November,
but
it
didn't
quite
work
out
so
here
I
am
tonight,
I'm
glad
to
be
here.
So
it's
interesting
in
that,
although
I've
done
Sunshine
Law
training.
I
Today
we
had
sunshine,
late,
sunshine
law,
training
for
the
city
of
Athens.
The
auditor
of
state
sent
someone
down
and
it
was
a
three-hour
training.
Elected
officials
have
to
have
sunshine
law
training
during
their
term
and
city
council
can
designate
someone
to
serve
in
their
stead.
But
in
this
case
we
had
several
City
Council
people
who
did
attend.
If
you
are
just
dying
to
have
more
information
about
the
Ohio
sunshine
law,
you
can
take
a
three-hour
course
and
that's
offered
by
the
Ohio
Attorney
General's
Office
you
have
to
every
so
often.
I
How
will
you
have
to
answer
questions
and
at
the
end,
you
get
a
certificate?
You
have
to
move
the
mouse
on
your
computer,
so
they
know
you're
still
there.
So
if
you
would
like
to
do
that,
so
I
want
to
tell
you
some
of
the
highlights,
as
somebody
before
the
meeting
asked
me
if
anything
had
changed
and
it
really
hasn't.
I
But
this
is
a
public
body
and
I
think
that's
important
to
remember,
you're
appointed
and
any
subcommittee
that
you
would
have
would
also
be
a
public
body.
We've
talked
about
that
before
or
subject
to
the
Sunshine
Law
and
the
Sunshine
lies
is
named
as
such,
because
all
public
vistas
business
should
be
conducted
in
public
in
the
sunshine
and
that's
why
we
have
the
Sunshine
Law.
There
are
two
parts
to
it.
One
part
is
open
meetings
and
the
other
part
is
public
records.
You're
not
really
faced
much
with
public
records,
because
I
believe
that
mr.
I
Aschenbach
er
keeps
your
minutes
and
so
you're
not
faced
with
that.
However,
there
could
be
a
time
when
there's
a
request
made
of
you
or
perhaps
by
email
communication.
If
somebody
believes
that
you
are
discussing
public
business
via
email,
there
could
be
a
request
for
your
emails.
We've
discussed
that
before
so
the
public
records
law
that
applies
to
public
records,
but
also
the
Sunshine
Law
talks
about
what
happens
in
your
meetings.
So
in
the
Sunshine
Law.
I
Everything
that
you
do
all
business
has
to
be
conducted
in
public.
So
if
you
were
to
have
a
subcommittee,
those
subcommittees
couldn't
meet
in
private
and
in
fact
you
have
to
be
very
careful
about
not
discussing
the
public
business
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
in
private.
So
let's
say
that
two
of
you
decide
that
you're
going
to
have
lunch
one
day
and
that's
something
that's
pre-arranged
meeting
and
if
you're
discussing
the
public
business
it
could
be.
I
Although
there
are
five
of
you,
it
has
to
be
a
majority,
but
it's
an
appearance
that
perhaps
you
are
violating
the
sunshine
law.
So
I'd
be
very
careful
that
that
doesn't
mean
that
you
can't
at
a
social
gathering.
You
can't
walk
up
to
someone
else
and
say
hey:
how
are
you
and
hello,
but
just
be
careful,
and
that
has
happened,
that
people
have
been
seen
in
public
that
are
on
committees
and
people
have
questioned
it.
So
a
memo
that's
circulated
or
an
email,
that's
circulated.
I
If
you
get
an
email
regarding
the
public
business,
you
should
not
respond
to
it
and
usually
I
think
the
best
course
of
conduct
is
to
state.
No
response
is
needed.
Certainly
you
send
information
now,
but
I.
Don't
know
that
I
need
to
remind
anyone
about
not
responding,
because
that
could
be
a
live
violation
of
the
Sunshine
Law.
If
you're
discussing
the
public
business.
A
H
I
However,
that
could
be
a
public
record
too,
could
be
a
request
for
your
emails
and
just
keep
that
in
mind.
So
there
are
some
statutory
exceptions,
but
most
of
those
wouldn't
apply
here
we
can
go
into
there.
There
are
times
when
a
public
body
can
go
into
an
executive
session
and
there
are
very
specific
exceptions.
I
think,
last
time
when
I
talked
to
you,
I
found
a
court
case
that
talked
about
deliberations
were
actually
quasi.
I
So
there
were
some
court
cases
that
I've
talked
about
before,
just
to
be
careful
of,
don't
whisper,
don't
pass
notes,
I
think
that's
pretty
evident,
but
there
are
court
cases,
so
obviously
people
have
done
it
before
and
again,
just
not
responding
to
an
email.
I've
got
to
get
into
a
conversation
around
Robin.
We.
This
was
very.
This
was
well
explained
to
us
today
and
round
robin
can
result
in
a
violation
of
the
Sunshine
Law
Open
Meetings
round.
I
Robin
is
let's
say
there
are
three
on
a
committee
and
person
a
goes
to
person
B
and
talks
about
public
business
and
person.
A
goes
to
person
C
and
talks
about
public
business.
That's
round
robin
and
that
could
be
a
violation
and
Ohio
Ethics
law
I
think
that,
as
far
as
the
ethics
law
violation,
the
ethics
law
is
punishable
by
a
misdemeanor
conflict
of
interest
is
very
simple.
I
Avoid
the
appearance
of
propriety
and
the
way
to
think
of
a
conflict
of
interest
is
very
easy
if
there's
a
direct
pecuniary
benefit
to
you
or
to
a
family
member
or
to
an
associate
of
business
associate,
and
that
would
be
a
conflict
of
interest.
So
that
was
just
the
highlights.
I
mean
this
one
I'm
for
three
hours
today
and
so
I'm
going
to
talk
to
you
for
three
hours.
Those
were
just
the
highlights.
More
importantly,
I
brought
another
packet
that
I
wanted
to
talk
with
you
about,
because
you
probably
think
okay.
I
I
I
I
I
On
page,
two
I
went
back
through
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
cases
that
made
it
up
to
the
court
of
appeals
and
I
thought
that
that
might
be
interesting
to
look
at
and
see
what
we
could
take
away
from
those
cases,
usually
Planning
Commission
and
those
don't
go
up
through
Common,
Pleas
or
court
of
appeals
or
any
any
of
our
other
boards
or
commissions,
so
you're,
the
lucky
ones.
Your
decision
could
be
appealed,
so
the
first
one
I
found
was
a
1985
decision
and
that
one
was
more
versus
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals.
I
I
Let's
see
the
permit
was
granted,
but
he
also
wanted
to
expand
and
pave
his
parking
lot.
He
appealed
to
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
for
the
expanded
parking
now
an
individual
by
the
name
of
Moore,
so
he
was
a
third
party.
Thus
he
appealed
and
asked
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
to
reverse
the
permit
and
deny
the
parking.
I
So
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
reversed
the
zoning
certificate
on
the
remodel
and
gave
mr.
Laughlin
twelve
months
for
rezoning.
So
mr.
Moore
appealed
and
he
appealed
to
the
Common
Pleas
Court,
because
that's
the
next
step.
So
what
happened?
There
was
the
common
pleas
court
said
no
12-month
exception
and
then
mr.
Laughlin
appealed
to
actually
in
that
Moore
appealed
the
12-month
exception.
Laughlin
appealed
to
the
common
police
court,
Common
Pleas
Court
said
the
entire
ordinance
was
unconstitutional,
but
the
Court
of
Appeals
reversed
it
and
reinstated
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
decision.
I
I
Situation
for
us-
oh,
this
was
for
this
was
on
Stimpson
and
the
zoning
inspector
refused
the
application
for
a
convenience
store
in
Stimson
and
for
the
reason
that
underground
gasoline
tanks
cannot
be
located,
cannot
be
located
less
than
200
feet
from
any
our
district.
So
in
this
case
it
was
the
goods
they
applied
for
a
variance,
and
there
were
two
hearings.
Residents
testified
opposed.
The
application
experts
testified,
the
board
deliberated
and
granted
a
conditional
use.
Permit
Kendal's
were
the
abutting
neighbors
and
they
appealed
to
the
common
police
court.
I
Common
Pleas
Court
affirmed
the
decision
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
Kendal's
appealed
again
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed,
so
that
just
gives
you
an
idea
of
how
it
goes
through.
The
the
law
of
the
case
was
the
Board
of
Zoning.
Appeals
has
discretion
to
determine
whether
a
variance
or
a
conditional
use
permit
should
issue
in
any
given
case.
So
that
was
the
law
of
that
case.
There's
always
something
out
of
a
case
that
you
can
pull
out,
and
we
call
that
the
law
of
the
case-
and
you
can
use
it
for
the
future.
I
I
The
Board
of
Zoning
appealed
granted
the
variance
but
reduced
the
area.
He
appealed
to
the
Common
Pleas
Court,
the
Common
Pleas
Court
reversed
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed
the
decision
of
the
common
police
court
reversing
so
the
law
of
that
case
was
the
Court
of
Appeals
does
not
have
the
power
to
weigh
the
evidence,
as
is
granted
to
a
common
police
court,
but
can
reverse
the
decision
of
the
court
only
upon
a
determination
that
such
court
erred
on
a
question
of
law.
That's
what
I
said
before
they
didn't
look
at
the
facts.
I
The
only
issue
looked
at
the
issue
of
law
on
1995.
A
lot
of
people
know
this
case
the
Rothstein
case
and
that
one
had
a
long
history.
In
1988
there
was
a
new
mayor
who
decided
to
enforce
the
zoning
regulation
that
no
more
than
three
tenants
could
reside
in
an
r1
and
r2
zone
and
that
would
be
strictly
enforced.
I
I
Common
police
court
said
the
actions
of
the
city
are
not
result
in
an
unconstitutional
taking
the
judge
found
the
BCA
decision
regarding
five
of
the
six
criterion
necessary
to
obtain
a
variance
were
unsupported
by
a
preponderance
of
substantial,
reliable
and
probative
evidence,
and
the
BCA
failed
to
satisfy
the
six
because
it
was
unconstitutionally
vague.
The
court
enjoined
the
city
from
enforcing
the
ordinance,
so
that
was
in
the
common
police
court.
Well,
then,
the
BCA
and
the
city
appealed
the
Court
of
Appeals
reversed.
I
There
was
a
case
in
1997,
so
you
can
see
there
have
been
a
lot
of
cases,
nothing
more
recently
than
2011,
but
in
1997
this
was
S&L
enterprises
versus
city
offense
and,
as
an
outsider
declaratory
judgment
against
the
city
alleging
he
had
the
right
to
use
a
basement
apartment
that
did
not
comply
with
window
size
because
of
the
grandfathered
provisions
and
they
sought
a
writ
of
mandamus
a
writ
of
mandamus
I'm.
Quite
a
common
pleas,
partially
branded
the
declaratory
judgment.
I
Wining
the
apartment
could
be
lawfully
used,
a
supporting
house
if
SNL
complied
with
the
Building
Code
court
concluded
the
procedure
for
us
and
I
will
to
challenge.
The
window.
Ordinance
was
to
first
submit
the
plans
to
the
building
inspector
for
approval
and
then
litigate
the
issue
so
SNL
appealed
our
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed
the
decision,
the
Common
Pleas
Court,
so
so
that
takes
us
up
to
three
wide,
and
this
is
one
of
that.
I
really
want
to
spend
some
time
on,
and
anything
you
see
here
was
something
that
we
do
in
law
school.
I
We
we
briefed
the
case,
so
you
read
a
case
and
I
brought
them
all
with
me.
If
anyone
really
has
some
strong
desire
to
look
at
them,
but
you
read
the
case
and
you
briefed
it
and
you
talk
about
the
facts,
the
issue,
procedural
history
and
the
conclusion
and
what
law?
You
can
law
of
the
case
that
you
can
pull
out.
But
sometimes
the
cases
have
more
information
than.
I
Some
have
more
than
others,
and
this
one
had
quite
a
bit
that
I
think
will
be
helpful.
I
think
people
are
aware
of
this
one,
so
this
was
2011
three-wide
filed
for
about
an
application
for
a
zoning
permit.
The
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
denied
it
Common
Pleas
Court
found
the
BCA
had
applied
the
wrong
standard
and
denying
the
permit
and
vacated
the
BCA
decision,
but
state.
It
was
not
a
judgment
or
reversal.
I
Eza
filed
an
appeal:
the
court
of
appeals,
how
the
proper
scope
of
the
board's
review
was
limited
to
determining
whether
the
company's
proposed
use
of
the
property
qualified
as
principle
permitted
use
as
specified
in
the
zoning
code.
Title
23,
and/or
qualified
is
the
same
general
character
as
those
specified
uses,
so
the
board
in
that
case,
relied
on
other
considerations
and
instead
of
focusing
only
on
what
use
uses
were
allowed
by
the
code,
the
BCA
indicated
its
decision
was
largely
on
what
kind
of
businesses
were
in
the
area.
I
Bca
was
equally
mistaken
to
the
extent
its
decision
was
based
on
whether
the
proposed
use
was
appropriate
for
the
community,
in
addition
to
the
inappropriate
factors
discussed
and
applied
by
the
board.
The
transcript
also
contains
some
evidence.
The
members
of
the
BCA
did
not
understand
their
role,
so
that's
actual
language
from
the
Court
of
Appeals
decision,
so
the
court
went
on
and
I
just
want
to
go
through
these.
I
There
were
more,
but
just
so
that
you
know
what
could
happen
in
the
court
of
appeals
and
what
the
court
of
appeals
well,
the
common
police
court
and
what
the
court
of
appeals
would
look
at.
So
the
court
listed
a
number
of
instances
in
which
various
board
members
seem
to
apply
an
applicable
standards,
standards
outside
the
scope
of
the
review.
Okay
and
here's
some
examples,
number
one
more
than
one
BCA
member
expressed,
surprise
and
confusion
that
the
board's
duties
encompass
more
than
handling
variances
number.
I
Two,
a
member
repeatedly
referred
to
the
immorality
of
the
proposed
use.
3
a
member
wrongly
expressed
the
scope
of
the
BCA
review
as
determining
whether
three
White's
business
was
business
would
be
similar
to
what
currently.
What
is
concurrently,
currently
I'm,
sorry
in
the
neighbourhood
for
a
member
state,
it
was
the
BCA
his
job
to
determine
what
was
appropriate
for
the
community
and
five
members
were
afraid
to
and
applying
standards
relating
to
the
granting
of
variances.
So
this
is
directly
from
the
language
of
the
case,
but
I
I
thought
this.
I
One
was
the
most
important
for
you
to
see
as
far
as
what
the
court
of
appeals
looked
at
and
the
findings
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
and,
of
course
you
know
when
the
court
of
appeals
hears
the
case.
They
they
don't
see
witnesses.
They
only
decided
on
a
paper
document.
They
have
a
transcript
of
the
proceedings
and
the
minutes.
So
here
the
question
was
whether
three
rot
wives
proposed
she's
qualified
as
a
principal
permitted
uses
specified
in
the
zoning
code
or
qualified
as
the
same
general
character.
G
I
Here,
that's
why
it's
very
important
for
you
to
discuss
the
findings
that
you
have
here,
your
factors
that
you
have
and
to
have
a
rationale
for
that,
because
that's
all
we
have
later
on
is
the
transcript
of
your
rash
and
he'll.
Oh
yes,
if
there's
a
notice
of
appeal,
then
at
that
point,
I
step
in
and
represent
Board.
A
E
Had
a
few
one,
someone
called
in
and
got
almost
very
personal,
with
an
appellate
as
someone
seeking
a
variance
got
a
little
personal,
and
that
was
a
little
uneasy.
I,
don't
know
how
far
well
John
with
no
help
yeah
hard
to
take
that.
But.
A
Well,
let's
say
we
have
five
days
to
change
our
decisions
after
this
tonight's
meeting.
If
the
appellant
comes
in
there
without
going
to
the
court
and
wants
to
talk
to
us
and
maybe
present
more
evidence,
and
if
we
set
up
a
special
meeting,
could
that
be
a
legal
thing
or
do
it
or
do
they
have
to
go
to
the
court?
And
so.
I
H
I
A
A
D
B
D
Found
out
later,
he
had
four
different
addresses
so
I,
you
know
I
sent
it
to
one,
but
anyway
the
board
decided
that
his
request
or
his
complaint
was
enough
to
have
it
heard
again
at
the
next
meeting.
Didn't
have
a
special
meeting,
just
tagged
it
on
to
the
next
meeting
that
was
there
and
how
does
it
speak?
His
piece
is
that
okay,
yes.
D
Then
they
made
the
rule.
What
happened
was
this
guy
wanted
to
add
a
deck
to
his
house?
That
was
too
close
to
the
property
line.
The
guy
who
owned
that
property,
the
neighboring
property
said
he
wasn't
notified.
So
he
wasn't
at
that
meeting
the
board
found
to
go
ahead
and
build
the
deck.
He
said,
no
wait,
wait,
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
testify
and
stuff,
so
the
board
granted
him
the
right
to
say
his
piece
and
I
believe
they
kept
the
same
decision.