Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Thomas Board of Adjustment grants variance for air-conditioning unit at 26 Ohio Avenue
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved a four-foot variance allowing an air-conditioning unit to be installed one foot from the right property line at 26 Ohio Avenue (Case 25-169426). Board members said the existing unit on the lot made the addition unlikely to change neighborhood character.
The City of Fort Thomas Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to grant a variance allowing an air-conditioning unit to be installed one foot from the right property line at 26 Ohio Avenue.
During the public hearing Tuesday evening, city staff summarized the case and said the applicants sought the variance because the unit will sit approximately one foot from the property line where the code requires a five-foot setback, creating a requested four-foot variance. City staff noted the applicants had previously received a dimensional variance in June for a second-floor addition and covered deck.
Applicant Peyton Lemons, who was sworn for the record and gave the home address as 26 Ohio Avenue, told the board the omission of the new unit from earlier plans was an oversight. "We didn't think about having it on the plan," Lemons said, adding that the new unit would be placed next to the existing unit so the house would not have units on both sides.
Board members asked whether neighbors had objected and whether the unit would be visible from the street; the applicant said neighbors had not complained and that landscaping largely concealed both units. A member asked about the length of time the existing unit had been in place; the applicant estimated the other unit had been there about 10–11 years.
On statutory questions, city staff told the board the new zoning ordinance took effect last December and explained that features in place before the ordinance may be considered legal nonconforming. Staff referenced the Kentucky Revised Statutes and noted a 10-year standard of nonenforcement can affect legal-nonconforming determinations.
After discussion, a board member moved to grant the variance, saying the additional unit would not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare, would not change the essential character of the vicinity and would not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning regulations. Another member seconded the motion. The board then conducted a roll-call vote; members Rayborn, Beukert, Doherty, Schultz, Vogt and Dixon each voted "Aye." The chair announced, "Motion is passed. You have your variance." The chair advised the applicant to "see Mr. Stewart for next steps from here."
The board closed the public-hearing portion of the meeting after the vote.
