Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 6 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 23, 2023 Members present: Loomis, Freshman-Johnson, Rockey, Holdren, Hijar Members absent: Fricke Also present: Jamieson, Cribari, Markowitz The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Ms. Freshman-Johnson. Ms. Freshman-Johnson gave a brief introduction to the meeting and the general routine of how BZA meetings are run. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Ms. Freshman-Johnson to approve the minutes from January 31, 2023. Carried. Ayes: Freshman-Johnson, Rockey, Holdren, Hijar. Nays: none. Abstain: Loomis. SWEARING OF WITNESSES All were sworn in. ROMA SONIA HORODYSKY, SPECIFICALLY AT 480 WALTERS ROAD, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-13-008 REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.09; KEEPING CHICKENS Mr. Jamieson explained that this application is to request chickens be allowed to be kept on her property. Section 1125.09, keeping chickens, requires that the keeping of chickens be allowed solely in the R1-100 district, this property is in the R1-60 zoning district. Their request is to allow the variance for their property. Mr. Rockey: “I would like to make a motion to approve the use of variance on permanent parcel on 932-13-008 with a variance to ordinance no. 1125.09. For the reasons for the motion, they would like to get permission to house a maximum of 4 chickens. This wasn’t necessarily self- created because the owner would have purchased this property maybe before the ordinance was put in place. The unique conditions, it’s a larger lot on the very outside of town, the property can be used for its zoned purpose which is the house that’s just kind of what this is going to be. It will uphold portion of the planning and zoning code because again this is a larger lot and that is how the R-100 is kinda treated. It is a minimal hardship in that we are still going to require them to be subject to 1125.09 as governed by the R1-100 district and the special conditions are just that the property is on the outside of the village and that it is a larger lot within the R-60 district. They will be required to follow all of the rules set out in 1125.09 applied in the R1-100 district.”  Page 2 of 6 Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Second.” Mr. Jamieson: “Motion by Rockey, second by Freshman-Johnson. Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “I am, as much as I would love to grant or to approve this request, I feel that like if you were to come and say, if the fence were already built, I’d be in a different position, I would be evaluating it differently but I am taking what your neighbor said and I can understand his concern and it seems like you all share one big large backyard. So for those reasons, I’m looking at the factors here, I’m quite not sure which one to pinpoint, but I just you know for the reason I just said I don’t think that I’m inclined to grant the request and I don’t, and ultimately this is not an unnecessary hardship, while it’s nice to have chickens, but living in your house, which is lovely, you’ll continue to do so.” Mr. Markowitz: “So that’s a no? Ms. Hijar: “Yes. Sorry it’s a no.” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ I’m gonna say I do agree that this is always difficult because it seems like such an easy simple thing and unfortunately, we sit up here and have to be really judiciary on how we approach things and when I look at the 6 factors it absolutely was self-created. These are just things you want; you don’t need, you aren’t running a business or can’t produce your own food. I think the only factor that fits is that it’s unique in that you are in the R1-60 with a larger lot. And I do understand that that happens we actually so a lot of variances for unique properties that’s why we are here, and we have this board to review and whether or not this is a unique situation that really warrants it. But a lot of things that I think about is the spirited nature of the neighborhood and the community and I know where your house is and it is a little bit of a larger lot but it is very close to other houses, the backyards are very shared, I know exactly where that is and the zoning is not perfect and we talked through that those are how things are done, you know, in independent reviews and advisories independent to this code and the chickens. So, the reality is we do have a concerned neighbor. I appreciate the bravery to come and speak up on that. I also think that you really only are meeting 1 of the 6 factors and to me that’s not enough for us to say that this is a non-issue and it meets all the other things so for all those reasons, it also sets precedent, I mean we have a lot of R1-60 in the village so what if somebody says well, at some point there has to be a cutoff, what if my lot was just a foot shorter than yours, what if it’s just a little bit further away, at some point somebodies the last lot, and somebody isn’t in the zoning, and somebody doesn’t qualify and it stinks when it doesn’t meet your needs and I apologize for that but I think setting precedent in the R1-60 and not that everyone wants chickens but what if we get everyone wanting chickens and then were living in a farm town so I think just setting precedent is a very big concern for me always, I’ve said that on many variances in the past so for me the ‘it’s nice to have’ just isn’t enough for me so I vote no as well.” Mr. Jamieson: “Loomis?”  Page 3 of 6 Ms. Loomis: “I think that Rachel eloquently stated what my thoughts were as well and I’m also voting no.” Mr. Jamieson: “Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “I mean my biggest point is that use variances are supposed to be used for when the property can’t be used for anything else. And if we start picking and choosing how we are going to allow these variances it’s kind of a dangerous slide so I’m gonna vote no. But I’m gonna predicate that on saying I believe that we should turn this over to planning and zoning and have them take a look at this ordinance and let’s talk about it in the R-60. It’s a good thing for council to do. It’s been brought up by a concerned community member and let’s take a look at it and, you know, see where we are at in the R-60 and it’s worthwhile to rehash that debate. So, I’m going to vote no but I don’t think that this will be the end of it.” Mr. Jamieson: “Ok, I would ask Jim Holdren if he wanted to vote or if he wanted to participate on this vote or not. It’s up to you.” Mr. Markowitz: “I don’t think he should, I don’t think he was here for…” Mr. Holdren: “Aw man I wanted to say yes. I’ll abstain.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ He needs to abstain. Ok, so just so you know there are 15 days every decision for someone to bring in to council if council wants to hear the case and if that 15-day window expires, you know.” Mr. Markowitz: “She would have to get 3 council members to petition.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Yes you would have to petition for 3 council members to appeal our decision within 15 days. If that doesn’t happen, then this case is closed, and the variance is not granted. However, Andrew is on council, and we did discuss that this is something that needs to be looked at and has been a topic and they will bring it up as something to look at. Maybe they change the code one day to say it’s based on the size of your lot not other factors not necessarily zoning so there is a path there for you just not this one today.” DANYELLA & ERIC JOHNSON, SPECIFICALLY AT 47 MAPLE STREET, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-05-001 REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TO THE ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW RULING AND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED PORTE COCHERE. Mr. Jamieson explained that this is an administrative appeal to the April 18th decision that the architectural board of review in denying their plan submission for a Porte cochere and side porch entry at this property. He stated that their decision is to determine if ABR was within their scope of authority and discretion in making the decision that they did.  Page 4 of 6 Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ I’d like to make a motion to deny the appeal for the Architectural Board of Review made in regard to 47 Maple Street. The appeal that we are reviewing today should be reviewed under the section of the code called 1115.04 standards of review. The standards of review have 5 items that we should be looking for, which in general are to be reviewing whether the ABR acted within their scope of their authority and that they used proper discretion in their review. As we have the meeting minutes from the ABR review, and we have had testimony this evening and as we have found it does seem that they have considered many things within their authority and proper discretion even in comparison to the property that may have similar buildout on 54 Church Street. The comparison of the two, the sizing and the massing of the differences in the architectural style that the Porte cochere would have, creates a different mass distinction on this house and that the consideration of the cognizance and the development of the adjacent properties also were taken into consideration because of that. The ones on Maple Street are much closer in the way that the path and the pattern of transportation vehicles would flow in and out of the properties and the ABR considered that in the Architectural review of this particular add on. Because of that, they appear to have used proper discretion in recognizing that as an issue. They have considered the village of Chagrin Falls’ design guidelines in looking at historical and proper architecture in the neighborhood. These are not common; they are incredibly unique and rare. So, it’s not something that’s done everywhere. I think that one of the comparisons tonight, there’s one on Church Street but the other one is at a funeral home, which does not meet the architecture of residential homes in the historical district of Chagrin Falls. They have considered the relationship of each design element as a whole in discussing the massing as we discussed before. The front porch sticks out of the west while this would stick out to the east creating an asymmetrical type of structure that is awkward in the neighborhood. They considered the potential for the design in its location in that it was in the middle of the house, it wasn’t in the back, it was next door to the next door property, potentially needing a variance and they have stated in clear words their purpose for their decision and for all of those reasons the ABR is found to uphold their scope of authority and have used proper discretion which is why this motion is to deny the appeal.” Mr. Rockey: “Second.” Mr. Jameison: “Motion by Freshman-Johnson, second by Rockey. Freshman-Johnson.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ So remember that this is to deny the appeal so a yes means you agree to deny the appeal. Just sometimes we have to keep that straight, so I vote aye to deny the appeal and that the ABR with great diligence on this matter.” Mr. Jameison: “Loomis?” Ms. Loomis: “I vote aye as well.” Mr. Jameison: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “Yeah, I vote aye as well. I think the board actually stated that this isn’t a bad design  Page 5 of 6 it just doesn’t fit the neighborhood, so I think that actually proves that they did their jobs correctly” Mr. Jameison: “Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “Aye for all the reasons stated.” Mr. Jameison: “Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “Aye for all the reasons stated.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Ok, the appeal is denied. Again, you will have 15 days to encourage 3 council to bring it to council for appeal. If that does not happen, you have the right to the circuit courts of Ohio and this case is concluded.” 97 WILLIAMS, LLC., SPECIFICALLY AT 97 WILLIAMS STREET, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-12-030 – REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.03(F) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS; MAIN BUILDINGS. AND SECTION 1145.02(B) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. Mr. Jamieson explained that this is an addition to the house and a new detached garage, but the garage is not under the subject for the variance reviewed tonight. The existing house exists nearly entirely in the front yard setback of the property. There is a required minimum of a 35-foot front yard setback. They wish to put an addition on the back of the house. Part of which would still be considered in the front yard setback of the property so what they are requesting is two variances. One is the standard alterations to a nonconforming property and the second is to 1125.03(F) which is to the front yard setback. While they are putting on an addition to the back, it pertains to the front yard setback. Mr. Holdren: “I would like to make a motion for the property at 97 Williams Street to sections 1125.03(F) which states you need a 35-foot minimum front yard setback, and this rear addition will be in the front yard setback. Therefore, needs a variance of 5’8”. Also, to section 1145.02(b) that just states that this is a nonconforming building because of the front yard setback so anything that you do to the house should be conforming to our code and it is not because it’s a nonconforming house. I think that the property still would yield a reasonable return without the variance, I think most properties in Chagrin would be fine, still be valuable without a variance. I do not think the variance is actually substantial because 5 foot 8 inches and as we stated it’s a rear addition that happens to be in the front yard setback to a house that’s on a street, I think yeah, it’s the only house on that street. Which leads into the next Duncan factor that the character of the neighborhood would not be altered at least would not be negatively altered as stated that there’s really one neighbor that is some tall condos so I don’t think that this variance in the addition and the plans would alter the neighborhood in a negative way. It definitely would not affect the delivery of government services. The property owner did not purchase the property knowing the zoning restrictions and the next one as far as can their predicament be obviated through any other method other than the variance there’s only two other ways and that is to pick up and move the house or to  Page 6 of 6 tear it down and as we talked about earlier this is a historic house that we do not want to tear down so I think that the spirit and intent behind the zoning will be observed by granting this variance and also this variance is not based on circumstances that are self-created by the owner.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Second.” Mr. Jamieson: “Motion by Holdren, second by Freshman-Johnson. Loomis?” Ms. Loomis: “I vote to approve the variance.” Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “I vote aye.” Mr. Jamieson: “Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “Aye for the reasons stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “Aye.” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?’ Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Aye for the reasons stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “And that’s for both variances.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Correct. Ok so that concludes the variance, and you will hear from the city in 15 days. If nobody appeals to council, then it will be approved, and you will get your documentation of approval at that time.” MISCELLANEOUS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Wade Fricke, BZA Chair GCS