is this you? Claim your profile.
is this you? Claim your profile.
+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month
It's free and takes 30 seconds
Whitlach and Company
Oct. 21, 1999 Zoning Appeals
Mr. Dieterle said that Mr. Krueger requested that the walkway be installed.Mr. Weiss explained the letter by Mr. Fred L. Krueger regarding the appendix section that was added to the back of the zoning resolution.Mr. Weiss explained that in 1991 , Mr. Krueger erred in granting this permit based on that standard and the court ruled it is not a valid permit.8. Appellant's Exhibit 8 - Letter from Fred L. Krueger to Bainbridge Township Zoning Board of Appeals dated February 18 , 1993.9. Appellant's Exhibit 9 - Svoboda Application and Permit10. Appellant's Exhibit 10 - Picture - Dieterle's propertyMr. Fred Krueger , of 1683 New Port Cove , Twinsburg , Ohio , former zoning inspector , testified that he is a graduate of Case Western Reserve University with a Bachelor's degree in Architecture and a Firefighter with the City_of Pepper Pike and he is also a Corporate Architect with Whitlach and Company.He said that when he was employed by Bainbridge Township , he was the Zoning Inspector , a Firefighter/Paramedic and Fire Safety Inspector from 1984 - November , 1991.He said his duties were to enforce the township zoning resolution and to resolve zoning complaints.He said the first time he met Mr. Dieterle was on an open burning complaint in 1986 and the second time was when Mr. Dieterle applied for a zoning permit for the Santa's chalet.Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Krueger if he was a friend of Mr. Dieterle.Mr. Krueger replied noMr. Weiss asked Mr. Krueger if he was aware of the appendix.Mr. Krueger replied yes.He referred to Exhibit # 2 and said that the appendix was taken from various places in the zoning resolution as they applied to the various lots in Bainbridge Township.He said he was directed by the board of appeals and it was reviewed by the zoning commission and primarily the board of appeals because the board was inundated with applications for variances.He said that in 1984 , most of the lots were non-conforming lots of record and said when he took office , most had to come to the board of appeals for variances and said that Rivers Edge Subdivision was given a blanket variance.He said at the board's direction , the trustees approved the appendix and said that the reason it was not made part of the zoning resolution was because of Canyon Lakes.Mr. Lamanna referred to Canyon Lakes and said that Mr. Krueger should not be testifying on privileged material.Mr. Lamanna said that Mr. Krueger cannot testify as to why it was not made part of the zoning resolution because it is privileged information.Mr. Krueger referred to Exhibit # 3 regarding the resolution passed by the township trustees.He read the motion by Dr. Robert Schlatzer and seconded by Mr. Wm.Repke on December 5 , 1987 as follows : Appendix A - Zoning Resolution - Dr. Schlatzer made a motion to adopt Appendix A as a supplemental document to the Bainbridge Township Zoning Resolution but not as a part of the Zoning Resolution , per the recommendation of Zoning Inspector Fred Krueger.Mr. Krueger replied yesMr. Krueger referred to Exhibit # 4 and explained the letter to the planning commission.Mr. Krueger said yes , in 1997 the appendix was still included.Mr. Krueger identified Exhibit # 5 and gave a summary of the memo to the board of trustees which referred to Santa's Hideaway Hollow.Mr. Krueger said yes , by Forrest Burt , Assistant Prosecutor at the time.Mr. Krueger identified Exhibit # 6 which is the application for a zoning certificate , the zoning certificate , site plan for the accessory structure and the zoning inspection worksheet.Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Krueger if he had any concerns with the gazebo at the time.Mr. Krueger said no he did not remember which structure the gazebo was.Mrs. Randall asked if Mr. Krueger could say where the buildings were.Mr. Krueger viewed the photos and said he could not say 100 % .He said that he applied the 20' side yard setback per the appendix and said it did not require lot coverage calculation.He said that the 1-1/2 acre criteria did not have a coverage requirement in the appendix.Mr. Krueger said yes , for 3 and 5 acre lots but when the appendix was applied , lot coverage was not an issue.Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Krueger why Mr. Dieterle had to have a walkway.Mr. Krueger replied yesMr. Krueger replied yes , but in this case it was not a problem with the zoning.Mr. Krueger identified Exhibit # 8 and explained the letter regarding the installation of the walkway.Mr. Krueger identified Exhibit # 9 which is the zoning permit issued to Mr. Ed Svoboda for a residential accessory structure immediately to the south.Mr. Krueger replied yes with no variances.Mr. Krueger identified Exhibit # 7 which is a letter to William Dieterle from Fred Krueger dated November 1 , 1990 which stated the rational that was used regarding Mr. Dieterle's make-believe role as Santa_Claus for terminally ill children with no overnight stays and no financial gain to Mr. Dieterle.Mr. Krueger identified Exhibit # 7 which is a letter to William Dieterle from Fred Krueger dated November 1 , 1990 which stated the rational that was used regarding Mr. Dieterle's make-believe role as Santa_Claus for terminally ill children with no overnight stays and no financial gain to Mr. Dieterle.Mr. Krueger testified that he issued 100 - 150 permits per year using the standards in the appendix.Mr. Krueger said yes , Riversedge Subdivision.Mr. Krueger said maybe , but he could not remember.He said the applicants were coming to the board and the variances were being rubber stamped.Mr. Krueger said it was not part of the book.Mr. Krueger said that is correct.Mr. Shillman asked Mr. Krueger if he requested that Mr. Dieterle put in a door and a sidewalk.Mr. Krueger said yes , a rear door and sidewalk from the existing house to the chalet.Mr. Krueger replied yesMr. Krueger said that the chalet was not completed until 1992.Mr. Krueger said he cannot recall but there was no coverage requirement in the 1-1/2 acre part of the appendix.Mr. Krueger said that is what it states.Mr. Krueger said only on certain lots.Mr. Krueger said he thinks it changes depending on what district it is.Mr. Krueger said he could not say.Mr. Krueger replied yesMr. Shillman asked Mr. Krueger if he did or did not apply the 10 % lot coverage when using the appendix.Mr. Krueger said he applied the information in the appendix but did not include lot coverage.Mr. Krueger replied yesMr. Krueger said no.Mr. Shillman asked Mr. Krueger if he did not have a duty to seek compliance.Mr. Krueger said the sidewalk was not included in the application but was a requirement when the permit was issued.Mr. Shillman asked Mr. Krueger if the opinion is that one illegal permit allows another illegal permit.Mr. Krueger said in this case there was no illegal permit issued.Mr. Shillman asked Mr. Krueger if when he visited Mr. Dieterle's premises in 1986 if he saw a building that contained a hot tub.Mr. Krueger replied yesMr. Weiss asked Mr. Krueger to look at the appendix regarding lots platted prior_to 1979 and referred to where the information came from and said in 1977 it very clearly states there is no lot coverage requirement.Mr. Krueger said that is correct.Mr. Krueger said that is correct.Mr. Weiss said that Mr. Fred Krueger is here tonight and no one asked him.Mr. Weiss said that Mr. Shillman and the county prosecutor did not notice the appendix and Mr. Krueger told me it should not be in the book.