[00:00:02]
PUSH AND SOUNDS ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, WE'RE AT 630 AND 40S. GUYS. ALL SET? ALL SET. OKAY, SO I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DATED WEDNESDAY THE 29TH, 2024. CAN THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE ROLL CALL? MR. PRESIDENT? MR. SHELL PRESENT. MR. JACOBS, PRESIDENT.
MISS SAMUELS, MR. SMITH, COUNCIL MEMBER. SHULL HERE. THERE ARE THREE VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ANY ACTIONS ON THE
[III. Action on minutes]
MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING AND CHANGES TO THE MEETING? MINUTES. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR MARCH 25TH, 2024. I'LL SECOND THAT, MR. JACOB. YES MR. SHELL? YES, MR. JONES? YES. MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT? NONE FROM STAFF. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY VISITORS? ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A COUPLE VISITORS THAT DO WANT TO POSSIBLY SPEAK TONIGHT. IS THAT TRUE? I HAVE A STACEY GOINS AND A BJ WOLFGANG. BJ, CAN I HAVE YOU GUYS STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YEAH THANK YOU. OKAY, FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE[VI. Cases]
GOING TO GO IN ORDER HERE. SO WE HAVE THREE CASES TONIGHT. WE HAVE 26, 27 AND 30. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH 26, FIRST CASE IS VARIANCE 26 202. FOR THE VARIANCES TO CODIFY ORDINANCE 1160 9.16 D AND THE BEACH ROAD NORTH DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES TO QUANTITY TO THE QUANTITY, SIZE, LETTERING, HEIGHT AND DESIGN OF THE SIGNAGE FOR CROWN LIFT TRUCKS LOCATED AT 3450 HORIZON COURT. CAN WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT PLEASE? THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. AS MENTIONED, THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 3450 HORIZON COURT IN THE LICKING COUNTY PORTION OF THE BUSINESS PARK. THE 61.38 ACRE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIALLY USED PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE SOUTH, WITH PLANNED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. THE VARIANCES REQUESTED INCLUDE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SIZE OF A WALL SIGN TO BE 142FT■!S, WHERE CODE PERMITSA MAXIMUM OF 75FT■!S, B VARIANCE O ALLOW LETTERING HEIGHT TO BE 47 OR 47IN, WHERE CODE PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF 36. AND PLEASE NOTE, THERE IS AN ERROR IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS. IT SAYS 42IN, BUT IT IS 47IN, VARIANCE C IS TO ALLOW TWO SIGNS PER BUSINESS FRONTAGE, WHEREAS CODE PERMITS ONE WALL SIGN PER BUSINESS FRONTAGE BUILDING FRONTAGE AND D A VARIANCE OF THE BEACH ROAD NORTH DISTRICT FRAMEWORK AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW A NON CONSISTENT WAYFINDING SIGN, AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, THE CROWN LIFT TRUCK SIGN IS LOCATED ON THE HORIZON COURT FRONTAGE, AND THE PARKS AND SERVICE THAT I'M CIRCLING OVER HERE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST ELEVATION, AND THESE ARE THE TWO SIGNS WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY. THE CROWN LIFT TRUCK SIGN, HAS HAS A, SORRY, THE CROWN LIFT TRUCK SIGN INCLUDES VARIANCE A FOR SIZE AND VARIANCE, B FOR LETTERING HEIGHT AND THE PARKS AND THE PARTS AND SERVICE MEETS CODE IN TERMS OF SIZE. HOWEVER, VARIANT C FOR QUANTITY APPLIES TO THIS SIGN SINCE THE SITE ONLY HAS ONE TREE FRONTAGE. HERE IS JUST AN ELEVATION SHOWING WHAT THE CROWN LIFT TRUCK SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE BUILDING WITH THE HEIGHT OR THE SIZE PROPOSED. THE FOURTH VARIANCE D IS VARIANCE TO THE BEACH ROAD NORTH DISTRICT FRAMEWORK AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS TO ALLOW AN INCONSISTENT WAYFINDING SIGN. HERE IS THE PROPOSED SIGN AND WHAT IS PERMITTED. STAFF DOES NOT HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED CONTENT, BUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSED SIGN. THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL AS IT WILL ALTER THE VISUAL LANDSCAPE OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS, VARIANCE VARIANCES TO A THE SIZE OF THE SIGNS B LETTERING HEIGHT AND THE C QUANTITY ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BZA. DUE TO THE BUILDING BEING LARGE SCALE, HAVING TWO SIGNS WITH INCREASED SIZE AND LETTERING IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL AND IT WILL NOT ALTER THE SURROUNDING AREA VARIANCE D TO THE BEACH ROAD NORTH DISTRICT FRAMEWORK STANDARDS, HOWEVER, IS SUBSTANTIAL AS IT WILL ALTER THE SURROUNDING AREA AND CAUSE INCONSISTENT AMONG STREET FRONTAGE. ALL OTHER SITES HAVE CONFORMED TO THE SIGN DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE LICKING COUNTY[00:05:03]
PORTION OF THE BUSINESS PARK, AND ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT COULD STILL RETAIN THE PROPOSED CONTENT ON THE PERMITTED WAYFINDING SIGN DESIGN. THANK YOU. AND, YOU CAN VOTE FOR ALL FOUR VARIANCES AT ONCE OR AS SEPARATE CASES. OKAY, THANKS. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT INTO RECORD. SO MOVED. SIR SECOND. MISTER. JAKE, I'M SORRY. MISTER JACOB. YES, MISTER SHELL. YES, MISTER. JONES. YES. MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. SO OUR GUEST TONIGHT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ARE WITH AMGEN. SO IS ANYONE FROM. OKAY, SO, SIR, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN, DID WE GET A THIS FILLED OUT FOR THE APPLICANTS? GENERALLY WE SIGNED IN, BUT WE DIDN'T SIGN ONE OF THOSE. OKAY, SO JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, OKAY? BRUCE SOMMERFELD, THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. MERCY. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH? I DO? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR A VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND DETAILED PACKAGE. THE THE PACKAGE ACTUALLY DOES INCLUDE ALL THE CRITERIA AND THE EVALUATION TO THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA. AND THE NEEDS AS TO HOW IT MEETS THE GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING APPROVAL TO, TO AND DURING PASSAGE. OF THIS REQUEST. SO I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE ITEM BY ITEM FOR THE SIX PAGES IF YOU LIKE. BUT I THINK FOR OVERALL WALL SIGNAGE HAS BEEN PRECEDENCE HAS BEEN SET PREVIOUSLY WITH SOME OTHER OTHER OTHER LARGE SCALE WAREHOUSE USERS THAT HAVE REQUIRED A REQUESTED LARGER SIGNAGE THAN THE CODE WILL ALLOW. SO FOR THE FIRST THREE, THE FIRST TWO VARIANCES ON THIS PACKAGE, WE'RE KIND OF FOLLOWING SUIT THERE WITH WITH A FACILITY THAT'S 175,000 PLUS SQUARE FEET.I THINK ALMOST 200FT OF 700FT OF FRONTAGE ON THE, THE COURT COURT RIGHT THERE. AND IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE IN REGARDS TO THE CRITERIA THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH VARIANCE FROM A FREEZE FOR A SECOND WALL SIGN, WHICH IS REQUIRED AS STAFF POINTED OUT, THAT WE ONLY HAVE ONE ONE ELEVATION THAT HAS THREE FRONTAGE AND WE NEED SOME IDENTIFICATION OF WAYFINDING ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING FOR THE ALL IMPORTANT PARTS AND SERVICE, EXIT OR ENTRANCE AND DIRECTIONAL, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT IT IS A SECOND SIGN THAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THIS PACKAGE. AND THE DESIGN OF THE SIZE DOES MEET CODE. BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S A SECOND SIGN, NOT ON A STREET FRONTAGE IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT'S WITHIN THIS PACKAGE. THE FOURTH VARIANCE IS FOR THE GROUND SIGNS, THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN. AND WHILE THAT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE AND THE LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH DISTRICT, WE WERE TRYING TO ENCOMPASS THE FULL BRANDING PACKAGE FOR CROWN LIFT TRUCKS. OBVIOUSLY TO RUN, TO HAVE THEIR COMPLETE BRANDING FACILITY, WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THE PACKAGE. SO THAT'S WHY THAT REQUEST IS IN HERE. IT IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR. AND THE SHAPE AND THE DESIGN AND SOME OF THE MATERIALS DO VARY FROM FROM THE STANDARDS THAT WERE LAID OUT INITIALLY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY. ONE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER THIS, BUT, SPECIFICALLY NUMBER OR LETTER D, THE WAYFINDING SIGN. WHY WHY WOULDN'T YOU JUST ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CODE SIGNAGE? I MEAN, WE WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOMPASS A WHOLE COMPLETE BRAND BRANDING STYLE PACKAGE. SO, BEFORE WE WOULD, DID WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE WAYFINDR THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING VERSUS WHAT WE WOULD. YES. HOW DO I GO ON THIS? OH SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE TOP LEFT IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY ELLIPTICAL SHAPE AROUND THE OUTBOARD POSTS, VERSUS THE NO TRUCK SIGN THAT IS PERMITTED IS ALSO THE STANDARDS
[00:10:04]
FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE, WHICH WERE ALLOWED UP TO 53, IT'S A TUBULAR ALUMINUM STEEL FRAME THAT'S, RECTANGULAR IN NATURE WITH A WITH A INCISED OR INSET ALUMINUM PANEL THAT CAN BE DECORATED STANDARDS ALLOWED FOR THAT TYPE OF SIGN OR PERMITTED SIGN THERE WITH THE NOMENCLATURE AND THE INTENT OF GRAPHICS THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED ON THE SIGN, IT DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS. SO IT'S BASICALLY THE SHAPE AND THE STYLE OF US. SO STAFF GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY, I WAS GOING TO JUST NOTE THAT IT'S A LITTLE WASHED OUT IN THERE. IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO SEE ON THE SCREEN OVER HERE ABOUT WHAT THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE SIGN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, PER CITY CODE. SO WHICH ONE IS THE CITY CODE ACCEPTED? ONE. SO IT'S THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. SO THIS MATCHES OUR GENERAL BRANDING FOR THE GROUND SIGNS AS WELL. SO IT'S THE SIMPLE FOUR INCH WHITE FRAMING AROUND A DARK COLORED SIGN. OKAY SO HOW WOULD YOU FIT ALL THOSE WORDS. IT'S NOT THE SAME ON THESE TWO GOING SORRY. IT'S, THE NO TRUCK SIGN IS THREE FOOT EIGHT BY THREE FOOT EIGHT IS THE ACTUAL SQUARE, IF YOU WILL. SO THE COMPARISON HERE. YEAH, BRUCE IS RIGHT. SO THIS SIGN IS ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THEIR SIGN. AND SO IT'S JUST WE JUST KIND OF FIT IT ON THE PAGE HERE. BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY ABOUT 4.5FT TALL. AND ALMOST FOUR FEET WIDE. WHEREAS THEIRS IS THREE FEET LESS THAN THREE FEET TALL AND THREE JUST OVER THREE FOOT WIDE. SO WE FEEL THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT SPACE SINCE THE CITY SIGNS STANDARD IS ACTUALLY IS ALLOWED TO BE BIGGER IN ORDER TO FIT ALL THEIR CONTENT. SO IS THERE A PRECEDENCE WHERE WE WENT OFF CODE FOR WAIVE WAYFINDING SIGNS? NOT THAT WE'RE AWARE OF. SO ALL THE SIGNS AND IT'S BEEN USED FOR NO TRUCKS AND FOR OTHER SECONDARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE LICKING COUNTY BUSINESS, PART FOR THIS, BEING USED LIKE KIND OF INTERNAL TO THE SITES. OKAY. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, DID WE HEAR FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS? WE DID NOT. OKAY. AND SECONDLY, I KNOW WE'VE WE'VE SEEM TO BE COMING ACROSS THESE LARGER SIGNS MORE REGULARLY. IS THE CITY ARE WE THINKING ABOUT ESTABLISHING A DIFFERENT CODE FOR THESE LARGER FACILITIES? SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP HEARING THESE VARIANCES? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WE'RE KEEPING TRACK OF THESE. AND I WOULD SAY AT THIS TIME WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DOING ANY CODE UPDATES. I THINK WE'LL CONTINUE TO MONITOR TO SEE, I GUESS REALLY JUST TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO DO A CODE UPDATE, WHAT WOULD BE THAT RIGHT AMOUNT FOR INCREASING? AT THIS POINT, WE THINK IT'S, PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO SEND THESE FOR VARIANCES. SO SINCE THEY ARE LARGER SIGNS THAN WE TYPICALLY SEE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, IN GENERAL IT ALLOWS FOR THE SECONDARY REVIEW. SO IF THEY ARE LARGER JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING AND THE BUSINESS PARK IN GENERAL. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST PONDERING MAKE SURE I'VE GOT MY SENTENCE TOGETHER, THIS THE SIGNS FOR CONSISTENCY PURPOSES ARE IN THAT. ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE FOR STAFF. IS THERE A CONSISTENCY, AS PERTAINS TO BOTH OUTSIDE THE LOGO FONT AND COLOR. SO THAT WAY WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THROUGHOUT THE BUSINESS PARK, YOU'RE ABLE TO HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY BE IN ADDITION TO THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THESE SIGNS. WHAT'S THE CONSISTENCY I GUESS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR BEYOND THE SIZE. YEAH. SO BEYOND SIZE, IT'S REALLY JUST BEEN THE WHITE FRAME STRUCTURE WITH THE DARK BACKGROUND. ONCE YOU GET INTO LIKE FONT, WE DO HAVE, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME PRESCRIBED LIKE FONTS ON THERE.HOWEVER, AFTER CONSULTING WITH OUR LEGAL DIRECTOR, YOU KNOW, WE, WE THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, VERY CLEAR THAT WE CAN, DO THESE DESIGNS FOR THE OVERALL STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, SO WHITE FRAMING, DARK BACKGROUNDS. WE'RE TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY. BUT AS FAR AS, LIKE FONTS AND CONTENT GOES, WE'VE ALLOWED DEVIATIONS FROM THE SIGN PACKAGE TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO INTEGRATE SOME OF THEIR OWN BRANDING AND TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT REGULATING CONTENT PER SE.
GOTCHA. OKAY SO IF WE DID GO WITH THE PERMITTED BRANDS OR STANDARD SIGN, WE COULD MAYBE UTILIZE THE GRANITE TRUCKS ON THERE AND SOME OF THEIR THE GRAPHICS COULD TRANSPOSE OVER THERE, PROVIDED THE COLOR AND THE OTHER STANDARDS REMAIN. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PULL VARIANCE D AND WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT. AND THEN WE WOULD JUST VOTE ON A, B AND C. SO I MIGHT HELP YOU ANSWER THAT. I CAN HELP YOU ANSWER THAT. ON THE EIGHTH OF AS A AS A PACKAGE TEN
[00:15:07]
OR THOSE INDIVIDUAL GO AHEAD. I MEAN I COULD PROBABLY HELP YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF D DOUBLE AGAINST. YEAH, THAT WE CAN DO THE CORE OF THE THREE. WE CAN DO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FAIR RIGHT. OKAY. CAN I SUGGEST ONE OTHER THING. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT D TO LOOK LIKE, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE PROBABLY THINKING JUST TO FOLLOW CODE. YES, THEN WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE JUST TO STILL MAKE A MOTION WITH THE FOUR AND THEN MAYBE ATTACH SOME LANGUAGE TO THAT, THAT SPECIFIC TO FOUR OR D, I SHOULD SAY SORRY. YEAH, CERTAINLY. I THINK THAT IF THE BOARD WANTS TO TAKE ACTION ON ALL FOUR. BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT COULD BE IN THE FORM OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT, THAT GROUND SIGN HAS TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF, OF THE CITY SIGN CODE. BUT AS WE DISCUSSED, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, WHERE THAT CONDITION TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE, THE CONTENT CAN BE AS, AS PRESENTED HERE AS FAR AS, LIKE WORDING AND, AND LETTERS GO, THAT WHAT WOULD BE WHAT ARE YOU SEEING THE BENEFIT TO DO THAT VERSUS JUST. WELL I WAS JUST THINKING OF YOU IF IT WOULD IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT, IF THE BOARD IS LEANING THAT WAY, WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ALL FOUR WITH A CONDITIONAL APPROVEMENT TONIGHT OR RUN WITH THE THREE THINKING? I THINK THAT'S WHAT CHAIR NESS WAS ASKING. BUT WHAT? HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE IF I SAID NO. D YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CODES OF THE CITY AND YOU JUST DO THAT RIGHT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO THEM.AND WE WILL APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND IT WILL BE LESS IN CONDITION, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO DO THAT. SO WE'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR IT FOR THAT TEXT PRETTY MUCH ON THAT. WE DO HAVE AN EXHIBIT D, THE MEET CODE THAT YOU STILL NEED TO SEE AND VOTE ON, BECAUSE IT DOES NEED CODE. YEAH. JUST REMOVE THE VARIANCE ON IT. YEAH. YEAH SO YOU'RE AGREEING THAT WE SHOULD TAKE AWAY THE TABLE OKAY. AND YOU CONFORM TO THE CODES FOR THE SIGNAGE AND, AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO SEE US AGAIN. CORRECT. OKAY OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT YOU. SO YOU'RE WITHDRAWING VARIANCE D. YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL WE CAN WE CAN VOTE ON IT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT. BUT WE CAN. TO YOUR POINT TO YOUR POINT MR. MAYOR. SHOULD THEY ALSO THEN MAKE A MOTION JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT WE ARE WITHDRAWING VARIANCE? D I LIKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THAT WOULD BE, A GOOD IDEA JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. OKAY JUST ONE LAST QUESTION, AND I DON'T MEAN TO PROLONG THIS, BUT THE LETTERING FROM 36 TO 47 HAVE WE. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE FOR THOSE LARGE. OKAY. YES YES WE HAVE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO YEAH.
SO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE VARIANCE D A SEPARATE MOTION. I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. YES AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SO I'M GOING TO APPROVE VARIANCE 2624 WITH THE REMOVAL OF PART D BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SECOND. I'M CONFUSED. IS THIS A SEPARATE MOTION FOR REMOVAL. CORRECT. OKAY MR. SHELL? YES. MR. JACOBS? YES. MR. JONES YES, THE MOTION PASSES WITH A MOTION TO WITHDRAW VARIANCE D AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
CONGRATULATIONS. WE NEED TO MAKE A MOVE. WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON A, B AND C. YES OKAY. SO THAT WAS JUST THE REMOVAL OF D, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION. YEAH. SO I MOVE TO APPROVE VARIANCE. 26 2024 REGARDING VARIANCE A, B AND C UNDER THAT VARIANCE REQUEST. I SECOND THAT MR. JACOB. YES MR. YES. MR. SHELL YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
THANKS. ALL RIGHTY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS VERY IT'S 27, THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES. WHEREAS THE BEACH INTERCHANGE L DASH G ZONING TEXT SECTION TWO STATES ALL UTILITIES UTILITIES NEED TO BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND. AND I KNOW MISS, MISS GOINS IS AND MR.
[00:20:10]
WOLF GRANT. WOLFGANG. YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STAFF REPORT ON THAT. WE'LL GET TO YOU IN A MINUTE. WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU, THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 4150 GANTON PARKWAY AND IT'S DEVELOPED WITH AMGEN, A BIOMEDICAL FACILITY. THE 13.1 ACRE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIALLY USED PROPERTIES. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES, WHEREAS THE BEACH INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT TEX STATES ALL UTILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND. ORIGINALLY, THE DESIGN WAS TO FEED DIRECTLY TO THE AMGEN FACILITIES VIA AN UNDERGROUND DUCT BANK. HOWEVER, AEP REVIEWED THE DESIGN AND DETERMINED THAT THIS DIRECT FEEDING TO THE PLANT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE DUE TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE, AND AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN WAS NECESSARY. THE PROPOSED OVERHEAD LINES ARE SHOWN HERE IN TURQUOISE THAT WILL CONNECT TO THE EXISTING AEP LINES ALONG WORTHINGTON ROAD. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE AS IT IS NOT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONNECT THE SOLAR ARRAY AND FEED IT BACK INTO THE AEP GRID. AS OVERHEAD LINES ALREADY EXIST, THE PROPOSED LINES WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT WILL PROVIDE CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE POWER, WHICH ACCOMPLISHES AND SUPPORTS THE ENGAGE NEW ALBANY STRATEGIC PLAN, RECOMMENDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES. THANKS FOR A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT SO MOVED SECOND.MISTER. MISTER JACOB. YES, MISTER SHELL? YES, MISTER. JONES. YES MOTION PASSES FOR THREE VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU, MISTER WOLFGANG, OR MISTER GOING MISSUS? MISS GOINS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH, SURE, MY NAME'S DJ WOLFGANG WITH SOLAR, SUB COMPANY OF PECOS INDUSTRIAL, AND THE APPLICANT FOR THIS VARIANCE. WE ARE ACTIVELY IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR ARRAY AT THE ENGINE FACILITY, AS NOTED, IT WAS A LONG PROCESS THROUGH THE DESIGN AND INTERCONNECTION PROCESS WITH AEP TO POWER DIRECTLY TO THE FACILITY BASED ON EXISTING ARCHITECTURE OF THE FACILITY.
THEY NOTED THAT WE CAN'T RUN IT POWER DIRECTLY TO THE FACILITY, SO THEY GAVE US ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS WHICH WERE DROPPED. A NEW POINT OF SERVICE AND THEN TIE IN THERE. SO ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY BUILT THE FACILITY, THE TURQUOISE LINE IS ACTUALLY THE LOCATION WHERE TEMPORARY POWER WAS ROUTED WHEN THEY WERE USING THAT FOR, FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. SO PART OF OUR, DESIGN CONSIDERATION, WORKING WITH AEP WAS, WELL, WHAT IF WE INSTALL, OVERHEAD POWER LINES TO CROSS THE EXISTING ROADWAY AS WELL AS THE WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER THERE, AND THEN TIE IN DIRECTLY TO THE EXISTING OVERHEAD LINE THAT'S RUNNING OVER TO THE ROAD THERE, SO AEP WE WENT THROUGH THE DISCUSSION WITH THEM. THEY DO REQUIRE TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME OFF AND PUT A SEPARATE METER DROP. BUT THEY DO REQUIRE SPECIFIC THINGS WITH SOLAR. AS FAR AS THREE THREE PHASE ISOLATION DEVICES AND RECLOSERS, WHICH AGAIN IS ALL, REASONS FOR US WANTING TO ELEVATE THAT. SO THAT IT'S, IT'S STANDARD PROCESS FOR WHAT THEY'RE USING WITH ANY KIND OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, AND ALL OF THIS POWER THAT IS NOW PRODUCED FROM THE SOLAR ARRAY IS FED DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE AEP GRID. AND ALL RESIDENTS OF NEW ALBANY. ALL RIGHT. SO I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO WAS THE SOLAR ARRAY AN AFTERTHOUGHT? NO, IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. AND WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH, APPROVAL WITH EVERYTHING TYING INTO THE FACILITY. IT WAS AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE UTILITY PROCESS, AEP CAME BACK AND SAID EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY ISN'T COMPATIBLE TO HANDLE THE SOLAR FEED BECAUSE OF A SPECIFIC TRANSFORMER ON SITE. SO THAT'S WHERE THEY WERE SAYING AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO TIE IT INTO THE MAIN MAIN POWER LINES OUT FRONT. IN REGARDS TO DID YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? THANKS. SO I'M STACY JONES, I'M WITH TURNER CONSTRUCTION. WE'RE THE GC FOR THE FACILITY AND THE SOLAR PROJECT. SO IN REGARDS TO THE CAMPUS, THE SOLAR WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. BUT, THAT'S WHY THE MAIN TRANSFORMERS FOR THE FACILITY IS WHAT AEP TOOK ISSUE WITH, THOSE WERE ALREADY ENERGIZED WHEN WE WERE IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WITH AEP. SO THE ENGINE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THE OPTION TO REPLACE THEIR TWO MAIN TRANSFORMERS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN FDA TESTING AT THE TIME, SO INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, MODIFYING THE FACILITY THAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE, WE HAD TO MODIFY THE PV DESIGN.
SO ALL OF THE, LIKE, UNDERGROUND DUCT BANKS ALONG THAT ENTRANCE WERE COMPLETE. THE ROAD WAS DONE
[00:25:01]
, IT'S REALLY JUST PV THAT WAS LEFT AT THAT TIME. AND PV. PV IS WHAT? SOLAR. SORRY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION COSTS. I'M SORRY. AND I READ IT IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT COULD YOU JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY YOU CAN'T GO UNDERGROUND? YES. SO, CURRENTLY THERE IS A WETLAND BUFFER AREA WHERE THEY USED TO POINT TO IT BECAUSE IT'S A LASER POINTER. I CAN TELL YOU I CAN GO BACK TO THE LARGER PHOTO AS WELL. I DON'T USE THESE VERY OFTEN. OKAY SO RIGHT OVER HERE, THIS IS A WETLAND BUFFER, THERE'S ALSO A CREEK THAT RUNS. I CAN'T REALLY SEE IS AM I IN THE RIGHT SPOT DOWN HERE, THAT IS ALSO LIKE A PROTECTED AREA. SO RATHER THAN DIGGING DOWN, WE'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO UNDER THE STREAM, THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF DUMPING RIGHT THROUGH HERE. WHAT DID YOU CALL IT? DUCK BANK. IT'S A LARGE ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK FOR THE FACILITY. SO, UNDERGROUND CONCRETE ENCASED CONDUITS, SO, SO BASICALLY, WE HAVE TO BRING IT OVER TO THIS SIDE. IF WE WERE TO DO UNDERGROUND. AND IF WE DO THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO SHUT DOWN AMGENS MAIN DELIVERY AND RECEIVING ENTRANCE, SO THAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR HOW LONG? I THINK I DON'T KNOW HOW. YEAH LIKE HOURS, DAYS. IT WOULD BE LIKE WEEKS AT IT. SO WHILE WE'RE DOING THE DUCT BANK, WE WOULD BE DIRECTIONALLY DRILLING UNDER THAT. UNDER THAT ROAD. OKAY.COULDN'T YOU DO THE DRILLING WHILE IT'S THE SOLAR ARRAY? IS NOT IS NOT POWERING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? NO, SO FOR SAFETY PURPOSES IS DRILLING UNDER THAT ROAD? WE WOULD SHUT IT DOWN. SO THERE'S NOT TRUCK TRAFFIC OR TRAFFIC GOING ON TOP OF IT WHILE WE HAVE THAT CULVERT THERE. OKAY. SO BECAUSE I'M HEARING THREE DIFFERENT THINGS AND ACTUALLY I HAVE A FEELING IT MIGHT BE ALL THREE. SO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND, THERE ISN'T A REGULATORY ISSUE. BUT AEP SAID IT'S THIS IS THIS DOES NOT FIT INTO THE CRITERIA TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. BUT I'M ALSO HEARING THERE'S AN INFRASTRUCTURE BARRIER THAT WOULD IMPEDE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS, BOTH PUBLIC AND TO THE COMPANY ITSELF. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S ALSO JUST BARRIERS IN GENERAL WITH THE FACT OF OTHERS, ACTUAL NATURE AND OTHER COMPONENTS. SO AM I RIGHT WITH. CORRECT. THERE'S MULTIPLE THINGS AT PLAY THAT HAVE MADE THIS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO UNDERGROUND. CORRECT. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE LEAST IN EVASIVE WAY TO MEET EVERYONE'S REQUIREMENTS. AND THIS WAS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. BUT IT'S POSSIBLE YOU COULD YOU COULD DO THIS. IT JUST IS TIME AND MONEY.
IT IS A TIME AND A LARGE IMPACT TO AND IN THE CLIENT, CORRECT? YES MONEY AND PATIENCE. BECAUSE IT IS A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY. THEY ARE PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, LIFE SAVING MEDICATION SO THAT WOULD, IMPEDE THEIR ABILITY TO DELIVER THOSE MEDICINES. SO STAFF, IS THERE A PRECEDENCE FOR US TO ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING LIKE THIS ANYWHERE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK? YEAH, I THINK SO. IN FACT, IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE CODE SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE CAN BE NO OVERHEAD UTILITIES BECAUSE CERTAINLY THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER SITES WHERE THERE'S SOME OVERHEAD UTILITIES THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRIAL PARK HERE, SO WE DO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE LINCOLN COUNTY PORTION OF THE BUSINESS PARK AS A WHOLE, AS, CIERRA MENTIONED, THERE'S ALREADY OVERHEAD LINES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD THAT ARE PUBLIC LINES. SO IT CERTAINLY WON'T BE OUT OF CHARACTER AND WOULD PROBABLY JUST BLEND INTO THOSE EXISTING LINES AS WELL. THOSE ARE HERE. YEP THOSE ARE EXISTING. THOSE ARE LINES RIGHT HERE. YES. AND WHERE IS THE CONNECTION WITH THE FACILITY AND THE POWER TODAY? RIGHT HERE, SO THE ENGINE FACILITY METER I BELIEVE IS OVER HERE. AND THAT'S WHERE THE UNDERGROUND, THE EXISTING ELECTRICAL UNDERGROUND IS GOING FROM FACILITY, I THINK THERE'S LIKE A GIS SWITCHGEAR HERE OUT TO HERE, SO I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. SO. SO THERE'S SOMETHING HERE THAT POWERS THE FACILITY TODAY. UNDERGROUND CONNECTING INTO THIS. CORRECT. THERE'S AN UNDERGROUND DUCT BANK FEEDING TO A NEW AEP METER ON THIS SIDE. I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO ONE OVER ON GANNON SIDE AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TO CONNECT THIS ARRAY BACK TO THIS LOCATION HERE. THERE'S A SEPARATE METER. IT'S A SEPARATE SEPARATE DROP A NEW SERVICE DROP OKAY. YEAH. SO THIS THIS METER DOWN HERE IS FEEDING POWER TO THE FACILITY. OUR NEW METER IS US FEEDING POWER TO AEP. SO US
[00:30:05]
BEING THE SOLAR ARRAY. YES. CORRECT. OKAY, OKAY. YEAH. WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THIS AS WELL.YEAH. SO THERE IS LIKE UNDERGROUND DUCT. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT AEP SAYING. THEY CAN'T USE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY HAD TO MEET THE CODE TO BEGIN WITH TO SERVE ELECTRIC TO THE.
SO THEY DID EVERYTHING RIGHT. BUT THERE'S JUST NOT SPACE. AND THEN AEP SAYING I UNDERSTAND LIKE NO YOU CAN'T USE THAT. SO THE ALTERNATIVE WAS TO DIG THROUGH A WETLAND OR BORE UNDER IT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THIS, YOU KNOW, SOLAR PANELS I THINK ARE, YOU KNOW, VERY LIKE FEEL GOOD PROJECTS. SO IT SEEMS A LITTLE COUNTERINTUITIVE TO US AS STAFF TO DIG UP A WETLAND IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW FOR SOLAR. SO WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, SINCE IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL AND IT'S SORT OF A WIN WIN ALL AROUND IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THIS OVERHEAD LINE HERE WITHOUT HAVING ANY, YOU KNOW, IMPACT THAT WE CAN SEE ON THE OVERALL ESTHETICS TO THE SITE, GIVEN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THAT SAME NO, NO, MR. MAYOR, WITHIN IN THE NEW ALBANY STRATEGIC PLAN, OBVIOUSLY WE, CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE POWER IS A PRIORITY. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IN ANOTHER PRIORITY. I COULD BE WRONG. THAT'S JUST LITERALLY A QUESTION, ISN'T THERE ALSO A PRIORITY TO NOT, BE IN THE PRACTICE OF CONSISTENTLY PUTTING UP MORE ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES? IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY FOR UNDERGROUND ALTERNATIVES IN ANY WAY, JUST FOR WHETHER IT'S ESTHETIC OR JUST, BEYOND THAT, I THINK GENERALLY, YEAH, WE'RE PRACTICAL. I THINK THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STRATEGIC PLAN, I DON'T THINK. YEAH, THAT WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THESE UNIQUE SITES, CONSTRAINTS AT THIS POINT. OKAY THANKS. AND NO, NO NEIGHBORS HAVE ANY ISSUES. NO NEIGHBORS REACHED OUT OKAY. WITH MY QUESTIONS, MR. MAYOR, QUESTIONS? SO AS I READ THIS, IT'S THE METER POLES THAT ARE EXISTING THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN USE IF THIS IS APPROVED. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO THERE'S ONE POLE THERE RIGHT NOW. THE APP WILL UTILIZE THEIR PRIMARY METER. EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ADD TO GET BACK TO THE SITE WOULD BE FOUR ADDITIONAL POLES. THAT WOULD ALL BE THOSE WILL BE NEW, CORRECT? OKAY GOOD. BECAUSE I KNOW THESE METER POLES CAN BE TEMPORARY BECAUSE THEY'RE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PROPOSAL, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE ALL GOING TO BE LIKE THAT. AND I HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT USING THOSE TEMPORARY POLES FOR PERMANENT USE FOR THESE ARRAYS. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO USE A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE BETTER, THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST I WOULD LIKE THAT MORE. OKAY. JUST TO HAVE A CURIOSITY QUESTION, HOW MUCH POWER WILL BE SUPPLIED BY THE SOLAR PANELS VERSUS REGULAR? SO IT'S A 1.5MW SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY TO , YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT SPECIFICS, POINT THAT TO HOMES PER YEAR OR. SURE, I CAN SURE. PUT YOUR CALCULATOR ON. I THINK FROM A GENERAL USE ON THE FACILITY, IT WAS ONLY LIKE A 20% OFFSET FOR THE FACILITY POWER BILL. BUT THERE'S BENEFIT TO THE CITY, CORRECT? OKAY, SO STAFF WAS SAYING MORE. MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE YOU SEEING A LOT MORE CUSTOMERS IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK LOOKING FOR SOLAR SOLUTIONS? ARE WE ARE WE SEEING THEM? YEAH, NOT YET, BUT WE'RE WELCOME TO IT. ARE WE SEEING ANY OF THAT? YEAH, I THINK SO. YEAH, I THINK A LOT OF OUR NEW USERS, EVEN OUR EXISTING ONES, ESPECIALLY THE DATA CENTERS, ARE INTERESTED IN SOLAR. SURE, AND THIS THIS IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S DIRECTLY FEEDING THE APP. YEAH WHEN IS SOLAR GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR A RESIDENTIAL? WELL, IT IS, IT IS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO I WILL MOVE TO ACCEPT VARIANCE 27 2424. WITH THE DOCUMENTS THAT. OH YES, SIR, WITH THE DOC? YEAH. WITH THE DOCUMENTS. ARE WE OKAY ON DOCUMENTS? YES WE DID THE DOCUMENT. YEP, YEP. SO I MOVED TO ACCEPT THE VARIANCE. 27 2024. I'LL SECOND THAT, MR. JACOBS.
YES MR. SHELL. YES, MR. JONES. YES THE MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
THANK YOU. CONGRATS. THANKS I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, BUT I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S JUST OVER. ONE. CAN YOU TIE IT INTO MY HOUSE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
[00:35:16]
CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY . THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. GOOD NIGHT. OKAY LAST ONE OF THE NIGHT IS. LET'S SEE. VARIANCE 30. VARIANCE TO CODIFY ORDINANCE 1171 .01 TO ALLOW THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS WITHIN A PORTION OF THE BACKYARD AT 29 WOLF SCUMB. SORRY. WHERE CODE REQUIRES LIVING TURF GRASS. SEEMS LIKE THIS KEEPS COMING UP. YEAH THIS PROPERTY. GOOD EVENING , THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE NEW ALBANY COUNTRY CLUB, SECTION 26. AND IT CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE HOME IS EAST OF HARLEM ROAD AND SOUTH OF EAST DUBLIN GRANVILLE ROAD. THE APPLICANTS REQUEST THIS SPECIFICALLY FOR A PORTION OF THE REAR, YARD THAT WILL BE A CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA. IT IS NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE RED. IT APPEARS THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE THE ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS MAKES UP ONLY 5% OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT BEING USED TO REPLACE OTHER AREAS OF THE YARD, AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BACKYARD CONSISTS OF A PUTTING GREEN POOL, POOL HOUSE, AND NATURAL GRASS. NOR IS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED BECAUSE THE ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS IS SCREENED FROM THE FRONT, FRONT YARD PROPERTY BY USING LANDSCAPE. ALSO SO THE VARIANCE PRESERVES THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE SURFACE MATERIAL IS SIMILAR TO OTHER PLAYGROUNDS IN THE CITY, THERE ARE A FEW PLAYGROUNDS WITHIN THE CITY THAT USE ARTIFICIAL TURF, GRASS MULCH, OR AND PLAY RUBBER.ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS IS TO PRESERVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GRASS FOR THE CHILD'S. FOR THE CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA. HISTORICALLY, THE CITY BOARD AND COMMISSIONS HAVE APPROVED SIMILAR VARIANCES TO THIS PROJECT. IN 2020, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS AROUND A COMMUNITY POOL AND AROUND A RESIDENTIAL POOL. IN 2024, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED A VARIANCE FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS AROUND A CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA AT A CHURCH. THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE.
SENATE. SINCE IT IS BEING UTILIZED AS AN ALTERNATIVE SERVICE MATERIAL FOR AN ACTIVE PLAY AREA, WHICH IS TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. THE ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS IN THE CASE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL DUE TO ITS LIMITED SIZE AND BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE BACKYARD, AND AT THIS TIME STAFF WILL TAKE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORTS INTO RECORD? SO MOVED. SECOND, MISTER JACOB? YES MISTER SHELL? YES, MISTER.
JONES. YES. MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. JUST REAL QUICK, SIR, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTO ALONG THIS FENCE HERE? IS THAT A NEIGHBOR? YES AND THE I FOUND, LIKE A BROKEN RECORD WITH NO ISSUES FROM THE NEIGHBOR . SO WE DID GET A PHONE CALL FROM THE NEIGHBOR WHERE I'M STANDING ON THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE NOT PLEASED WITH THE VIEW OF THE ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS. AND THAT WAS A PHONE CONVERSATION ALONG WITH THEM. OKAY. AND THIS IS ALREADY EXISTING. AM I CORRECT? SO HOW DID IT COME TO BE, THAT HOW THAT THIS ALL CAME ABOUT, IF IT WAS ALREADY PUT IN? AND HOW DID THE CITY FIND OUT ABOUT IT? THIS WAS REPORTED BY A NEIGHBOR AS A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE. GOTCHA THIS, YOU SIERRA, YOU LISTED, MULTIPLE, PRECEDENTS IN WHICH IT RESEMBLES, SIMILARITIES. HOWEVER, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY THAT WERE RESIDENTIAL. IS THAT ACCURATE? ARE THE REST ALL PARK OR PLAYGROUND AS RELATES TO EITHER BUSINESS ENTITY? NOT RESIDENTIAL, BASICALLY, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
NONE OF THOSE WERE RESIDENTIAL THAT WERE APPROVED. THERE WERE, TWO, TWO THAT WERE APPROVED. SO
[00:40:09]
THERE WAS, AND THEY WERE BOTH HURT BY PLANNING COMMISSION, ONE FOR A COMMUNITY POOL AT THE COURTYARDS AT HAYNES CREEK, AND ONE RECENTLY THIS YEAR, FOR, THE CHURCH ARMS, COAT AND, AND, EBRINGTON THAT WAS APPROVED AROUND, A PORTION OF A POOL. BUT THEY WERE BUT THEY SO THEY WERE RESIDENTIAL HOMES, OF WHICH THOSE WERE APPROVED. THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS. OKAY. GOTCHA.FAMILY RESIDENCE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY THAT THE THAT YOU MENTIONED THE CHURCH THAT WAS COMMERCIAL, RIGHT. AND THERE WAS A NICE HOME WE APPROVED, BUT IT WAS WAY IN THE BACK VERY ISOLATED. THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE SEEN WHERE WE HAVE SUCH A DIRECT VIEW FROM A NEIGHBOR. UNLESS I'M UNAWARE. YEAH SO THIS SIDE HERE IS THIS VIEWPOINT HERE. YEAH. SO THIS IS THE THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO THIS IS THE PUBLIC STREETS. SO THIS IS FRONT YARD REAR YARD. AND THIS IS A SIDE YARD. AGAIN LOOKING ALONG HERE. SO IT'S JUST THIS CORNER WHERE THE TRAMPOLINE AND THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ARE UTILIZED. I ASSUME IT'S THE NEIGHBOR TO WHAT'S THE DIRECTION HERE TO THE LEFT ON THAT CALL. SO YEAH. SO THIS IS THE FRONT DOOR. I THINK THIS IS BACKWARDS. I THINK NORTH IS GOING THE OTHER WAY. BUT YEAH, THIS VIEW IS THIS LINE RIGHT HERE. SO THIS THIS SECTION OF THE FENCE THAT'S GOING HERE IS SAME AS THIS LINE DO WE KNOW IS THE FENCE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. WOULD THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT SOME SCREENING. YEAH THAT'S MY QUESTION. YEAH. THE FENCES ON THE PROPERTY LINE OKAY. SO LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. SO THE NEIGHBOR REPORTED THIS TO THE TOWN RIGHT. THEY DIDN'T GET APPROVAL TO DO THIS. SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION AFTER THEY'VE ALREADY DONE SOMETHING. IS THAT CORRECT. SO WE GOT A COMPLAINT FROM THE NEIGHBOR ON THIS SIDE. I BELIEVE IT WAS ALSO PREDOMINANTLY ABOUT STORMWATER AND SO THEY SAID THEY HAD DONE THESE IMPROVEMENTS, AND IT WAS CAUSING STORMWATER RUNOFF. SO WE INVESTIGATED. SO WE DECIDED THAT WAS A PRIVATE PROPERTY MATTER THAT THE CITY HAS NO REGULATIONS OVER SINCE THERE'S NO EASEMENTS IN THE AREA. AND IT WAS LIKE DURING THAT STORMWATER INVESTIGATION THAT WE DETERMINED THAT THE THIS IS USED WITH THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF. SO IT'S PLAYGROUNDS. AND TO INSTALL THESE PLAYGROUNDS AND THESE TRAMPOLINES DON'T REQUIRE ANY PERMITS, SO THEY JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN INSTALL THAT, JUST LIKE ANYBODY IN THE CITY CAN INSTALL THAT WITHOUT ANY PERMITS FROM THE CITY ITSELF.
AND SO I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY PERMITS NECESSARILY THAT WERE LIKE, MISSED. BUT IT WAS AT THAT POINT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE RESIDENT, BUT WE ASSUME THAT WHEN THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT WENT IN IS PROBABLY ALSO WHEN THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF WENT IN. SO THERE WAS NO PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO THERE ARE NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEIGHBORS FOR, FOR OUTDOOR JUNGLE GYMS OR TRAMPOLINES. THAT'S TRUE. NOT FROM THE CITY.
THERE ARE NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE ARE FROM THE STREET, CORRECT? NO, NO, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL FOR PLAYGROUNDS. THEY'RE UNREGULATED BY THE CITY OF NEW ALBANY. THERE COULD BE THROUGH THE HOA, BUT THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S NOT THROUGH THE CITY. OKAY, OKAY. DOES THE APPLICANT, AWARE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TONIGHT? MY QUESTION TO YOU, YES . OKAY. SO CAN YOU GIVE US MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THEM? THE PROPERTY. OWNER OR THE PERSON COMPLAINING ABOUT THE TURF, THE NEIGHBOR? IT'S JUST AS STEVE SAID, THERE WAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT, IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLY IMPEDING STORMWATER RUNOFF, AND DURING AN INSPECTION, WHILE LOOKING AT, THE PROPERTY, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS ARTIFICIAL TURF USED, ON THE PROPERTY. AND WHAT WAS THE ASSESSMENT OF THE STORM RUNOFF ISSUE IS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE FAKE GRASS THAT THEY PUT BACK THERE? NOT THAT WE COULD FIND. YEAH, WE COULDN'T FIND ANY ACTIONABLE ITEMS ON THAT. YEAH. FOR THE AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED. SO AT THAT POINT, YES, I JUST PICKED UP FOR SERIES. SO ONCE WE FOUND OUR ARTIFICIAL TURF. YES. YOU'RE NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THESE OWNERS RIGHT HERE, THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF IS NOT ALLOWED. AND SO WE ISSUED CODE VIOLATION LETTERS. AND SO THEY SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION TO SEEK THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TONIGHT, AND SO PER CODE, THE CITY IS ALSO NOTIFIED ALL THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE, BUT DO YOU HAVE THE NAME OF THE NEIGHBOR, I DON'T
[00:45:04]
KNOW IF WE KNOW THAT OFFHAND, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY FIND THAT FOR YOU. OKAY I'M SURPRISED THEY'RE NOT HERE. I'M SURPRISED THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE. IF THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WATER RUNOFF, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE CRAZY ABOUT PLANTING TREES RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT FENCE EITHER. I WOULD BE INCLINED TO CONSIDER IT IF THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR THAT THEY WOULD PLANT THE TREES TO PROVIDE THE SCREENING WITHOUT EITHER OF THEM HERE. SO I THINK SINCE. YEAH, SINCE NOBODY'S HERE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BOARD COULD TABLE THIS FOR ONE MONTH. WE CAN REACH OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER AGAIN, LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THE NEXT HEARING DATES, AND WE WOULD CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, SEND OUT NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION LETTERS AGAIN TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS. SO JUST TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF A FUTURE MEETING. SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE DOES THIS AND THEY GET CAUGHT DOING IT, WHETHER THEY THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO OR NOT, IS THERE A FINE STRUCTURE THAT THE TOWN HAS THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE YOU ARE NOT WITHIN CODE. YOU NEED TO REMEDIATE THIS BEFORE X DATE OR X OR Y. SO OUR CODE DOES HAVE PROVISIONS SO THAT THE CITY CAN FINE THE PROPERTY OWNER IF THEY WANT. WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT THROUGH MUNICIPAL COURT IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION ON THAT FINE. WE HAVE IT'S BEEN OUR POLICY NOT TO DO THAT IN THE PAST UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. WE ALWAYS SEEK, YOU KNOW, EITHER THAT THEY RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE OR THEY SEEK A VARIANCE FIRST BEFORE, GOING TO LIKE A FINE STEP. WE WOULD WE'VE ALWAYS TREATED THAT AS SORT OF A LAST STEP IN THE PROCESS. OKAY I GUESS QUESTION FOR STAFF I, I KIND OF GET THE IMPRESSION WHERE THIS THING MAY GO, AND ONCE WE VOTE, IF WE HAD A NO VOTE, THEN THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RIP IT OUT. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S RIGHT. AND I GUESS I WOULD RECOMMEND TABLING IT ONE MONTH JUST SO WE CAN HAVE GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT FOR THE VOTE, I THINK IN THE PAST THAT'S BEEN OUR LAW DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION AS WELL, SINCE SINCE NOBODY'S HERE. YEAH. I'D REALLY LIKE THE PERSON, THE NEIGHBOR TO ATTEND TO, BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT ON SOME SORT OF REMEDIATION THAT HE PUTS IN SOME SCREEN EDGE TO BLOCK IT. AND IF HE'S OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO BE OKAY TOO. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO THEM AGAIN, DIRECTLY AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD. OKAY, GREAT. AND I'M SORRY IF I MISSED IT. STEVE, DID YOU DID WE SAY, HOW LONG, THEY WERE MADE AWARE? HAD THEY BEEN NOTIFIED FOR, LIKE, 30 DAYS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE HEARD? IS IT 30 DAYS? SO WE HAVE TO SEND OUT NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION LETTERS, I THINK TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DAYS. YEAH GOT IT. OKAY. GOTCHA. THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. OKAY. ARE YOU GUYS OKAY TABLING. YEAH OKAY. OKAY. I'LL MOVE TO, TABLE VARIANCE 30 2024 TO OUR NEXT, NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING. SECOND, MISTER SHELL. YES, MISTER JACOBS. YES, MISTER LAJEUNESSE. YES THE MOTION PASSES WITH THREE VOTES TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. OKAY CAN WE REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBOR AND SAY, LOOK, THIS IS BIG. WE DISCUSSED THIS TABLE THAT IF YOU WANT TO BUILD YOUR CASE, WE EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD ATTEND THE NEXT MEETING. AND LET'S COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT ON WHAT THE REMEDIATION WOULD BE. SURE. ABSOLUTELY OKAY. AND IF YOU GUYS ARE INTERESTED IN SCREENING, WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TOO, JUST TO SEE, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS STAFF'S CONCERNED, IF THERE'S ANY CONSTRAINTS ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS EASEMENTS OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT, YEAH, NOT ALLOW FOR THAT. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY COME WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING SCREENING IN THAT AREA. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE, I'M VERY I'M PERPLEXED WHY THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SHOW UP TONIGHT. THAT WAS A LITTLE CONCERNING TO ME, BUT.[VII. Other business]
OKAY. ANY OTHER BUSINESS TONIGHT ? SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 24TH. AND JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING ANYWAYS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT JUST GOT SUBMITTED FIRST, FOR NEXT MONTH, JUNE 24TH. OKAY OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? SO MOVED. SECOND MEETING ADJOURNED. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE A ROLL FOR THAT, THIS COMMITTEE GENERALLY DOES. SO, MR. JACOBS. YES. YES. MR. SHELL. YES* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.