Township Home | Search | FAQ

Zoning Board of Appeals  |  Members  |  Meeting Dates  |  Upcoming Hearings

Past Decisions

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, December 47, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 768]  Ohio Valley Voices.  The applicant was appealing a finding of the Community Development Director relating
                  to the removal of existing lights on the property.  The applicant submitted a revised site plan showing the 
                  existing lights and the plan was reviewed by staff.   Staff found the lights conformed to zoning standards and
                  approved the modified plan.  With the approval of the plan staff withdrew its zoning violation finding.  Ohio
                  Valley Voices withdrew its appeal.  The case was dismissed.
                  

[Case 769]  James Norman.  The applicant was requesting a 300 square foot variance to permit a 1200 square foot 
                  detached garage and a 6-foot height variance to permit the garage to be 21 feet high.  The applicant stated
                  the size was needed to store a camper and other household equipment.  The Board of Appeals questioned
                  the size of the garage in relation to the size of the homes and other accessory structures in the neighborhood.
                  After a public hearing the Board voted to deny the square footage variance, but to approve the height variance.
                  

[Case 770]  R & K Partners.  The applicant was requesting a variance from the standard that all business in the B-1
                  Neighborhood Business District be conducted within a fully enclosed building.  The applicant was proposing 
                  an outdoor deck for a Bar & Grill that was under construction.  The Board of Appeals was concern with the 
                  proximity of residential and the 25 foot setback from a residential district. After a public hearing the Board
                  voted to deny the variance request.
                  

[Case 771]  James Murphy.  The applicant was requesting a 6-foot setback variance to permit an in-ground swimming pool
                  to be located 9 feet from the rear property line.  The applicant argued that the rear yard was part of the 
                  permanent open space and the reduced setback would not have an adverse impact on adjoining properties.
                  The Board asked about the rear yard and reviewed photos to determine if there was another location for the 
                  pool that met zoning standards.  After a public hearing the Board determined there was a hardship and voted 
                  to approve the variance request.                              

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, November 7, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 768]  Ohio Valley Voices.  The applicant was appealing a finding of the Community Development Director relating
                  to the removal of existing lights on the property.  The appellant argued the lights were grandfathered and 
                  owned by Duke Energy, not the school.  The Township argued the lights were existing and existing lights 
                  must be shown on a site plan.  The Board of Appeals voted to continue the case and allow Ohio Valley 
                  Voices to submit a modified site plan showing the existing lights.  The staff would then review the lights to
                  determine conformance with zoning standards.
                  

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, October 2, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 767]  Betty Jo Woodall.  The applicant was requesting a variance to permit two houses on one lot on a temporary
                  basis.  It was the intent of the applicant to build a new home on the lot while living in the existing house.  After
                  the new house was complete the old house would be demolished.  After a public hearing the Board of Appeals 
                  voted to approve a temporary variance to permit two houses on one lot with the condition the existing house 
                  would be demolished after the new house was complete.
                  

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, September 11, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 766]  Darla Watt.  The applicant was requesting a front and side yard setback variance for an existing legal
                  non-conforming structure.  The former residential structure would converted to a retail gift shop.   Since the
                  proposed use was a permitted use in the zoning district, and the use would occupy an existing, grandfathered
                  building, the Board voted to approve the side and front yard setback variances.

[Case 764]  Robert Baker.  This case was continued from the August meeting.  Over the past month the staff received    
                 clarification on the issues involved with the case and and the exact variance requested.  The applicant needed
                 an 11 foot variance from the front yard setback for the proposed garage.  There was concern expressed relating
                 to the impact of the garage on adjoining properties.  It was also pointed out that the garage could be    
                 constructed on the  property within zoning standards, without a variance.  After the public hearing the Board
                 voted to deny the variance.

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, August 7, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 761]  Clonch Insurance.  It was determined no variance was required for the proposed sign.  The case was
                  withdrawn. 

[Case 762]  Milford Church of Christ.  The applicant worked with the neighboring property owner and the County Building
                  Department to satisfy the sanitary sewer issues and the stormwater issue.  With these issues satisfied, the
                  Board approved the Conditional Use.

[Case 763]  Sheri Hood.  The applicant was requesting authorization to expand an existing legal non-conforming use - Jeff's
                  Quick Stop.  There was an additional request for a 12 foot parking lot setback variance.  During the public
                  hearing the applicant described the improvement, the construction of off-street parking, the elimination of the
                  existing uncontrolled parking and the construction of sidewalks along the street.

[Case 764]  Robert Baker.  The applicant requesting a 20-foot front yard variance to permit the construction of a garage on
                  his property.  During the public hearing there was discussion related to the location of the garage, its impact
                  on adjoining property owners and the exact variance required.  The Board voted to continue the case until
                  September 11 to allow time to further research the issues involved with the case.

[Case 765]  House of Restoration.  The applicant requested a revision to the approved Conditional Use for a proposed
                  Christian School.  In May 2006 the applicant received approval for a two story Christian school with a gym. 
                  The applicant requested a revision to the plan that would permit modular units as classrooms until the new
                  school was constructed.  During the public hearing there were questions relating to the amount of time the
                  modular units would be in place.  There was uncertainty on when the new school would be complete, how long
                  the modular units would be in place and what enforcement would be necessary to remove the units.  After the
                  public hearing the Board voted to deny the revision to the conditional use.

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, July 10, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 759]  Tom & Sharon Scovanner.  This case was continued from the June 5 meeting.  The issues involved with the
                  case were mediated after the June 5 meeting and the applicants withdrew their appeal.

[Case 760]  Steve Novack.  The applicant requested a 5-foot setback from the side property line for the construction of a
                  detached garage.  The Zoning Resolution requires a 10-foot side yard setback.  After a public hearing the
                  Board voted to approve the variance.  It was found the intent of the Zoning Resolution was maintained because
                  there was still a 30-foot separation between the new garage and the adjoining house.

[Case 761]  Clonch Insurance.  The applicant requested a 10 square foot variance to the size of a sign from 40 square feet
                  to 50 square feet.  During the public meeting the size of the existing signs to be removed was discussed.  If
                  the size of the new sign was no larger than the existing signs, then a variance would not be required.  The
                  Board recommended the case be continued to provide the Community Development Director time to review the
                  existing signs to determine if a variance would be required.

[Case 762]  Milford Church of Christ.  The applicant is requesting a conditional use for the expansion of the existing
                  church.  Staff found the proposed expansion met the requirements of the Zoning Resolution.  During the public
                  hearing there was discussion related to sanitary sewage disposal and stormwater runoff.  The Board voted to
                  continue the hearing until August 7 to provide the applicant time to work out the sanitary and stormwater
                  issues with the neighboring property owner.

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, June 5, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 758]   Shelley Izzi.  The applicant requested a 20 foot variance from the required 50 foot setback requirement of an 
                   office building from a residentially zoned property.  The property was recently zoned "O-1" Professional Office 
                   and was located between a commercial area and a new single family subdivision.  There is a 25 foot strip of 
                   land between the commercial buildings and the proposed office site.  The applicant argued the strip could 
                   never be developed and it would be better to keep the building further from the new homes than from the strip 
                   of open space.  After a public hearing the Board voted to approve the setback variance.

[Case 759]   Tom & Sharon Scovanner.  The applicants were appealing several findings by the Community Development 
                   Director as they related to Ohio Valley Voices, a new private school under construction on Branch HillGuinea 
                   Pike.  The findings related to parking lot setback, lighting and landscape buffering.  After both the applicant 
                   and school officials argued their points, the Board recommended the parties attempt to mediate the issues.  
                   The Board voted to continue the case until the July 10 meeting.

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, May 1, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 755]   West Union Properties.  The applicant requested authorization to expand an existing non-conforming use.  
                   The company owns SR 28 Storage, a self storage facility.  The Miami Township Zoning Resolution was 
                   amended in January 2006 and a part of that amendment eliminated self storage units as a permitted use in 
                   the B-1 business district.  The applicant argued the building was already planned and the Zoning Resolution 
                   permits the expansion of a non-conforming use up to 50% of the existing square footage.  After the public 
                   hearing the Board voted to approve the expansion of the self storage facility at a maximum of 50% of its 
                   current size.

[Case 756]   House of Restoration.  The applicant was requesting a Conditional Use to permit a Christian private school as 
                   part of their church facility at 1487 SR 131.  The applicant described the proposed school and explained how 
                   it met the conditions set forth in the Zoning Resolution.  After the public hearing the Board voted to approve 
                   the conditional use.

[Case 757]    Mr. J. Lee Putman.  The applicant request a variance from the requirement that all swimming pools over 18 
                    inches deep must be fenced.  The applicant argued that the pool had an automatic pool cover.  He provided 
                    evidence that the cover was secure and could support the weight of several people.  After the public hearing 
                    and upon the recommendations of the Law Director and the Fire Department, the Board voted to deny the 
                    variance request.

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, April 3, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 751] - Ray Meyer Sign Co.  The applicant requested a variance to install a second wall mounted ID sign for  
                   Movie Gallery.  The applicant stated Movie Gallery was located in a corner tenant space and did not 
                   have visibility  from Loveland Miamiville Road.  In addition, the applicant stated that without the sign 
                   the retail center  appeared to have a vacant space.  The Board agreed with the applicant’s 
                   arguments and after a public hearing  the Board voted to approve the variance request.

[Case 752]  Debbie Dickman for A Design-N-Mind Hair Salon.  The applicant requested  a variance for a   
                   second wall sign.  It was stated the sign, which was already erected, would be a retail center sign 
                   and  not an individual tenant sign.  The sign is a changeable copy sign for use by all tenants. 

[Case 753] - Wards Corner LLC.  The applicant requested a variance of 20 feet from the 40-foot rear yard setback 
                   and a variance of 25 feet from the 150 feet required at the building line.  The applicant argued the 
                   steep topography of the site, required adjustments to the setbacks in order to make the lot 
                   buildable. The Board agreed with the applicant’s arguments.  After a public hearing, the Board voted 
                   to approve a modified setback variance.

[Case 754] - Jim Cook.  The applicant requested a variance to reduce the parking stall size from 10' x 20' to 9' x 
                   19' for a   retail development located at 1067 SR 28.  The Board agreed the variance was justified and 
                   similar in nature to other variances granted in the past.  After a public hearing, the Board voted to 
                   approve the variance.

The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals held a special meeting on Monday, March 20, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 739]    The applicant, K. Scot Conover, appealed a finding of the Community Development Director relating to a 
                    change in an approved Conditional Use subdivision known as Grey Cliff. The appeal challenged a finding that 
                    the plan change was a minor revision to the subdivision that only required administrative approval and felt the 
                    BZA should review and take action on the revised plan. The Board of Appeals found that the change was not 
                    a minor revision and granted the appeal. 

[Case 740]    This case was directly related to Case 739. The applicant, Miami Township, submitted the revised Grey Cliff 
                    plan to the BZA for review. The plan was revised from the original because of a taking of 17 acres for a 
                    proposed elementary school. During the public hearing, there was debate on whether the plan met the 
                    conditions set forth in the Zoning Resolution. After all comments were heard and the public hearing closed 
                    the BZA members found the proposed subdivision plan met the conditions of the Zoning Resolution and 
                    approved the Conditional Use. 



The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, March 6, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 743]     Applicant: The Drees Company. This case was continued from the February 6th meeting. The applicant was 
                    requesting a conditional use to permit the development of a 98 lot subdivision on Dry Run Road in a R-2 
                    Zoning District. The conditional use will permit a reduction in lot size from 20,000 square feet to 12,800 
                    square feet. During the public hearing there was concerns expressed relating to traffic, density and lot size. 
                    After the public hearing, the Board voted to deny the conditional use. 

[Case 744]    Applicant: Victory Signs. The applicant was requesting a variance to permit a second wall sign for Dollar 
                    General located at 5616 Lee Lavati Court. The applicant argued the store had no visibility from west bound 
                    traffic and the existing ground sign was low that during heavy traffic it was not visible to motorists. After the 
                    public hearing the Board voted to approve the variance. 

[Case 745]    Applicant: Rick DeZarn. The applicant was requesting a variance to construct a detached garage in the front 
                    yard setback. The applicant argued the septic system, the leach lines and the location of mature trees 
                    limited the location of a detached garage. After a public hearing the Board voted to approve the variance 
                    request. 

[Case 746]    Applicant: Miami Towne Center LLC. The applicant was requesting a variance to reducing the parking stall 
                    size from 10 x 20 feet to 9 x 19 feet for three proposed retail uses at the intersection of Loveland Miamiville 
                    Road and Branch Hill Guinea Pike. The applicant stated a variance was granted for the first phase of the 
                    development and requesting the same standard be applied to the second phase. After the public hearing the 
                    Board voted to approve the variance. 

[Case 747]    Applicant: Miami Towne Center LLC. The applicant was requesting a variance to reduce an internal side yard 
                    building setback from 15 feet to 12 feet for a proposed multi-tenant retail building at 784 Loveland Miamiville 
                    Road. The applicant argued the building was located near the center of the development and would not 
                    impact adjoining properties. He further stated the reduction in the side setback was needed to accommodate 
                    a proposed drive through for a coffee shop. 

[Case 748]     Applicant: Miami Towne Center LLC. The applicant was requesting a variance to increase the size of an 
                    approved monument sign from 60 square feet to 80 square feet and a variance to permit two additional 30 
                    square foot freestanding monument signs for proposed retail buildings at 784 Loveland Miamiville Road. The 
                    applicant argued the increase in the number of tenants required additional signage. After some discussion 
                    the request was modified to permit an increase in the area of the monument sign from 60 to 80 square feet 
                    and the addition of only one additional ground sign. After the public hearing, the Board voted to approve the 
                    modified request. 

[Case 749]    Applicant: Mama Vita's Restaurant. The applicant was requesting a variance to permit an increase in the size 
                    of a rear wall sign. The proposed sign will be 36 square feet. Staff found the sign to be out of character with 
                    the rest of the signage of the multi-tenant retail building. The applicant modified the variance application by 
                    proposed a smaller sign that was in character with the other signs. After a public hearing, the Board voted to 
                    approve the modified request. 

[Case 750]    Applicant: Classic Properties. The applicant was requesting a revision to an approved conditional use 
                    subdivision know as Wittmer Estates located on Mt Zion Road. The revision involves the reconfiguration of 
                    internal streets and the addition of 4 lots. During the public hearing there was discussion relating to the 
                    newly created lots, stormwater drainage, noise, and buffer yards. After the public hearing the Board found the 
                    proposed plan met the conditions of the Zoning Resolution and voted to approve the request. 



The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, February 6, 2006 to consider and take action on the following cases: 

[Case 736]    This case was continued from the January 9 meeting. The applicant, Brandicorp, was requesting a variance 
                    to permit three freestanding signs for a retail development to be located at 1073 SR 28. Only one 
                    freestanding sign is permitted by the sign regulations. The applicant was also requesting variances to 
                    increase the height of the signs and the size of the sign area. At the January meeting, the Board voted to 
                    deny the variance request for the two freestanding signs that would be located off-site on easements. The 
                    applicant submitted a redesign of the remaining freestanding sign. The sign was 30 feet high and 90 square 
                    feet in area. The applicant did not appear at the meeting to justify his request. The Board voted to deny the 
                    sign variance. 

[Cases 739    These cases, relating to Grey Cliffs subdivision, were continued from the January 9 meeting. At the request
     and 740]   of the applicants, the cases were continued to a special March 20 meeting. The purpose of the continuation 
                    was to give the developer and the adjoining neighbors time to discuss impacts of the development. 

[Case 741]    Applicant: Robert Reed. The applicant, Robert Reed, was requesting a 7-foot variance to permit the 
                    construction of a detached garage 3 feet from the side property line. The zoning standard requires a 10-foot 
                    setback from the property line. The subject property is located in Miamiville, an area of smaller more narrow 
                    lots. After a public hearing the Board voted to approve the variance request. 

[Case 742]    Applicant: Thomas Duesing. The applicant was requesting a 6-foot variance to permit the construction of an 
                    addition to an existing detached garage 4 feet from the side property line. The zoning standard requires a 
                    10-foot setback from the property line. The garage was constructed before changes to the zoning resolution 
                    that increased the side yard setback. The applicant demonstrated other garages on neighboring lots also had 
                    3-5 foot setbacks. After a public hearing the Board voted to approve the variance. 

[Case 743]    Applicant: The Drees Company. The applicant was requesting a conditional use to permit the development of 
                    a 98 lot subdivision on Dry Run Road in a R-2 Zoning District. The conditional use will permit a reduction in 
                    lot size from 20,000 square feet to 12,800 square feet. During the public hearing there was concerns 
                    expressed relating to traffic, density and lot size. After the public hearing the Board voted to continue the 
                    hearing giving staff time to work with the developer to address some of the issues. 



The Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, January 9, 2006 and considered and took action on the following cases: 

[Case 736]    This case was continued from the December 5, 2005 meeting. The applicant, Brandicorp, was requesting a 
                    variance to permit three freestanding signs for a retail development to be located at 1073 SR 28. Only one 
                    freestanding sign is permitted by the sign regulations. The applicant was also requesting variances to 
                    increase the height of the signs and the size of the sign area. The Board voted to deny the variance request 
                    for the two freestanding signs that would be located off-site on easements. The Board continued the case for 
                    the remaining sign giving the applicant an opportunity to redesign the sign. 

[Case 738]    Applicant: Michael Croake. The applicant was requesting a detached garage located in the front yard 
                    setback. The applicant argued his rear yard setback was only 15 feet and due to topography and septic 
                    system a garage could not be placed behind the house. After a public hearing the Board agreed with the 
                    applicant and voted to approve the variance request. 

[Case 739]    Applicant: Scot Conover. The applicant was appealing an administrative finding of the Community 
                    Development Director relating to revisions to the subdivision design plan for a proposed subdivision called 
                    Grey Cliffs located on SR 131. The subdivision was approved by the Board of Appeals as a conditional use in 
                    November 2004. Mr. Conover argued the plan revision was a major change and should be reviewed by the 
                    BZA at a public hearing. The case was continued to the February meeting to allow the applicant time for 
                    additional research. 

[Case 740]    Applicant: Miami Township. This case is directly related to case 739. This case reviews the changes to Grey 
                    Cliffs subdivision.

                     Board of Appeals Case Decisions 2005          |          Board of Appeals Case Decisions 2004

     These meeting summaries have been placed on the web for your convenience. These summaries are 
     not the official minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals. You may obtain a copy of the official minutes by 
     contacting the Community Development Department at 248-3725 or 248-3731. If there is a discrepancy 
     between the official minutes and the summaries that appear on this web site the official minutes will 
     control.