Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 4 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS September 26, 2023 Members present: Freshman-Johnson, Rockey, Holdren, Hijar Members absent: Fricke Also present: Jamieson, 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 None. SWEARING OF WITNESSES All were sworn in. MR. AND MRS. RAFTUS, SPECIFICALLY AT 106 CHURCH ST., PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-04-082 – REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.03(F) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, FRONT YARD SETBACK, MINIMUM AND SECTION 1145.02(B) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; ADDITIONS. Mr. Jamieson shared that this application requires two variances. a. Section 1125.03(f) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings, Front Yard Setback, Minimum, requires a 30-foot required minimum setback. The proposed front porch addition has a front yard setback of 25 feet 2 inches. A variance of 4 feet 10 inches would be required. b. Section 1145.02(b) Nonconforming Buildings and Structures; Additions; states that a nonconforming dwelling may be altered, modernized, or enlarged provided the alterations and enlargements conform to all the yard regulations and setbacks. The existing house is nonconforming in that it does not meet the required 30-foot front yard setback. The proposed front porch addition is 4 feet 10 inches within the required 30foot front yard setback. A variance would be needed to this section. Mr. Holdren: “I would like to make a motion” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Fabulous. Go for it.” Mr. Holdren: “I would like to make a motion for a property at 106 Church Street to sections  Page 2 of 4 1125.03(f) that requires a 30-foot minimum setback and the owner is requesting a 4 foot 10 inch variance into the front yard setback and also to section 1145.02(b) it states that a nonconforming structure if it's altered in any way it must be you know you must get a variance to this code unless you're gonna, the new alterations the whole house is within the you know within the code. So as was already stated this porch that's going to be 4 feet 10 inches within the setback is still further away from the road or than the right of way than the current house, so this is not a substantial variance. The property in question could, it's arguable, it could still yield a reasonable return without the variance. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered. The two neighboring properties are within the setbacks as well, and the variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. The property owner did not purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions and the property owner's predicament cannot be feasibly obviated through any other method without the variance and the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and justice would be done by granting the variance. And the variance is not based on circumstances that are self-created or exist as a result of the action of the property owner.” Mr. Markowitz: “How do you know that they didn’t know?” Mr. Holdren: “They said they didn’t know in the application.” Mr. Markowitz: “They should be based on testimony, but the rest of your motion is fine.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “I’ll second.” Mr. Jamieson: “Motion by Holdren, second by Freshman-Johnson. Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “Aye, approve the variances for reasons stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “Aye, for the reason stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “I'm going to say two quick things that I think needed to be added. This is this is really it's important that this variance is not extending the impact to the front yard setback. So, we're not moving any closer to the street than the existing porch and this is one of these ones that is definitely not self-created because the house was built probably before these front yard setbacks were established so it was there pre-existing our code so aye for all the reasons.” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Aye for all the reasons stated. Great you’ll have 15 days. If you don’t hear anything you'll get a letter that says you're good to go.” MR. AND MRS. ARCADI, SPECIFICALLY AT 483 FALLS ROAD, PERMANENT  Page 3 of 4 PARCEL NO. 931-03-060 REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.03(H) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK, Mr. Jamieson shared that this application requires a variance to Section 1125.03(h) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings, Minimum Rear Yard Setback, requires a minimum of a 50-foot rear yard setback. The proposed new house and covered rear patio have no rear setback to the municipal boundary line where the rear yard setback is measured as it is closer than the property lot line. The north corner of this property extends over the municipal boundary line into Chagrin Falls Township. A variance of 50 feet would be required. If the entire lot was in the Village of Chagrin Falls, it would be fully compliant with the 50-foot rear yard setback, but part of the lot is within Chagrin Falls Township. The township zoning inspector was contacted, and he has allowed the BZA to make the call. This project did go before the Architectural Board of Review on August 15th, 2023. They were granted preliminary approval of the plans as well as a recommendation for the rear yard setback variance from ABR. Mr. Holdren: “I would like to make a motion for property 483 Falls Road to grant variance to section 1125.03(h) that states that the property requires a 50-foot rear yard setback. And I don't know if we have, do we ever talk about how much variance they need?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “50.” Mr. Holdren: “The whole thing?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “The whole thing.” Mr. Holdren: “The whole thing? Okay, they need a 50-foot variance. As stated, this property is unique that the entire house, the whole project is within the property line setbacks. So if the whole property line was in the village of Chagrin Falls, they would not require variance, but because a corner of the property is still, is not within the village, it's in the township only, then they require, they need a variance because the back porch actually crosses the property line, but I'm sorry the municipality line not the property line, so I do not think the variance is substantial. I think anytime you give a 50-foot variance, it's put that that number is a substantial. But when you consider this property as itself, I don't think this variance is substantial at all. It doesn't encroach on the neighbors. These are fairly big lots, so they, you know, this won't encroach on, the reason for a setback is so it's not close to the neighboring house, and in this case, it wouldn't be at all. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered. The granting of the variance would not affect the delivery of governmental services. Oh yeah, the owner's predicament cannot be obviated through any other method without granting a variance besides building a much smaller house because taking 50 feet from the municipality line would just drastically reduce the size of the house that could be built on that property. And the spirit and intent would definitely be observed, and justice would be done by granting a variance on this property and the variance, That’s it.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “I’ll second.” Mr. Jamieson: “Motion by Holdren, second by Freshman-Johnson. That will be Freshman-  Page 4 of 4 Johnson.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “I vote aye for the reasons stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar? Ms. Hijar: “ Aye for reasons stated and especially had it not been for the municipal township line, this would not even be here.” Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “I vote aye.” Mr. Jamieson: “Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “Aye for the reasons stated.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ All right. Is there any other... Oh, sorry. You're approved. There's 15 days where someone could get counsel to appeal and take a vote, but likely no. So, after those 15 days subside, you will get a letter. That will confirm the vote.” MISCELLANEOUS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Wade Fricke, BZA Chair GCS