Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 4 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 12, 2023 Members present: Fricke, Rockey, Holdren, Hijar Members absent: Freshman-Johnson Also present: Jamieson, Flynn The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mr. Fricke. Mr. Fricke 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. RIVERBEND EQUITIES, SPECIFICALLY AT 45 WALNUT STREET, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-03-025, REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(B) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: ADDITIONS, SECTION 1125.03(F) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, FRONT YARD SETBACK, MINIMUM, SECTION 1125.03(H) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, REAR YARD SETBACK, MINIMUM, AND SECTION 1125.03(E) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, COVERAGE BY MAIN BUILDING, MAXIMUM, MINIMUM Mr. Jamieson shared that this is a proposed new front and side porch addition to the house. The plans were given preliminary approval by the Architecture Board of Review on September 19th. There are four nonconformities to the zoning code that come before the board with the following variances. 1. Section 1145.02(b) Nonconforming Buildings and Structures: Additions, states that a nonconforming building or other structure shall not be altered, added to or enlarged unless the additions and original building or other structure are made to conform to the yard, coverage and height regulations of the district in which it is located, except 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 as it extends 8.3 feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback boundary. The proposed new front porch extends another 8.7 feet into the front yard setback. A variance to this section would be required. 2. Section 1125.03(f) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings, Front yard setback, minimum (ft.), requires a 30-foot minimum setback. The proposed new front porch addition has a front yard setback of 13 feet. A variance of 17 feet would be required. 3. Section 1125.03(h) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings, Rear yard  Page 2 of 4 setback, minimum (ft.). requires a 30-foot minimum setback. The proposed new attached rear garage has a rear yard setback of 5 foot 8 inches. A variance of 24 feet 4 inches would be required. 4. Section 1125.03(e) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings, Coverage by main building, maximum, minimum (ft.), sets the maximum lot coverage of the main building at 24% of the overall lot size. With the addition of the new attached garage and new front porch to the house, it becomes part of the main building. The lot coverage of the main building with the additions is 32%. A variance of 8% or 420 square feet would be required. Mr. Fricke: “ Motion please.” Mr. Holdren: “I would like to make a motion to grant variances for 48, or I'm sorry, 45 Walnut Street. There are four variances requested. Section 1145.02(b) states that this is a current non-conforming building, so any alterations have to conform to our code. And all these alterations do not, so they would need a variance there. The next variance is section 1125.03(f), and this is for the front yard setback. Our code requires a 30-foot minimum setback. The current house is 8.3 feet into the front yard setback, and with the addition of the porch, that's another 8.7 feet total of 13 feet, variance would be needed. The next section or the next variance is section 1125.03(h), which is I believe the rear? Yeah, the rear setback our code requires a 30 -foot minimum setback and by attaching the garage to the house, the garage is now within that 30-foot minimum the 30- foot set back and it's 5 feet 8 inches from the property line so they would need a 24-foot 4-inch variance and lastly a section 1125.03(e) this is for lot coverage. Our code in the R150 district requires the main structure to be 24% of the lot coverage or less and with the addition, this house will be 32% of the lot coverage. I'd also like to point out that by attaching the garage is what is putting this further over the 24 % coverage. If they were to leave this detached, it would not count towards that coverage because houses in our code are allowed a 700 square foot garage or any kind of additional structure in your yard that would not count towards a lot of coverage. Let's see here. Also, I'd like to point out that this, you know, R150 district requires a 6,000 square foot lot and I believe this is less than 5,000. So right there is already the lot which was formed before our code is already too small. So therefore, that's hard to, you know, it already makes it hard to build us a house within the lot coverage requirement when the lot is too small per our code and that is not the fault of the owner. So, I'm going to touch on a few of the Duncan factors. So, the variance, as far as it's substantial, I believe that the front yard setback is not substantial. It's actually lining up the house with the neighbor. It's gonna match the rest of the street. I don't think it's a substantial front yard setback you know, the neighborhood. The lawn coverage is substantial. I think anytime, you know, a lot of coverage variance, I think all a lot of coverage variances are substantial, so, so this one as well. I think the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered in the positive by granting these variances. I think this is, no matter what you do to this house you're going to need variances. It's a house that needs repair on a small lot, so I think you know when answering, is the essential character the neighborhood be altered by granting variances? It would and in the positive, the variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, and this is important. I think the property, or no, that's not that one. The property owner  Page 3 of 4 purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction he did, but the owner's predicament cannot be obviated through any other method without variance. As already stated, no matter what you do to this house, you're gonna need variances according to our code. And I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting a variance. And that’s my motion.” Mr. Fricke: “Well, thank you. Is there a second?” Mr. Rockey: “Second.” Mr. Fricke: “Andrew, thank you. Rob roll?” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke? Mr. Fricke: “ I will vote aye; I think this is an example of why we have our code and our process. This checks virtually every box on why we should grant. I believe the variance requests are substantial, though. This is a very unique lot; I believe that the owner is doing everything possible to make the requests as minimal as possible. I think the fact that the owner asked initially for less than what ABR told him to ask for is interesting and I always or often my vote hinges on the character of the neighborhood being altered. I think the character of the neighborhood will be enhanced by this. So, for all the reasons the motion plus what I've added I would vote aye.” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “I also vote aye. The variance is substantial, but the property owner is making substantial improvements to the property that will yield a reasonable return and will improve the character of the neighborhood and makes it attractive for the modern family to live in. Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “Aye for the reason stated in the motion” Mr. Jamieson: "Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “So the only thing I want to add to this is this spirit of the zoning code and it's the it's the addition of the living space above the garage and the that you know if it was detached you wouldn't be able to do that if it's attached you can but there really isn't a place to put an additional kind of ensuite bathroom without putting it on the third floor and who the hell wants to walk up two flights of stairs to go to bed at night, I don’t, so that's what I'm adding to it, but I vote aye.” Mr. Fricke: “ All right, so what happens now is by code, council has 15 days to reconsider or rehear this if they wish. I never say never anymore, but it's highly unlikely with a 4 -0 vote that that would happen, but the long and short of it is You have to wait 15 days and upon the expiration 15 days Rob will notify you that there's been no motion or petition filed or appeal filed and then you're good to go so 15 days from now.” MISCELLANEOUS  Page 4 of 4 Mr. Jamieson announced that they will have a meeting at the end of January to discuss two projects that could not be completed earlier in the month. Mr. Fricke wished everyone on the BZA a happy holiday! ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Wade Fricke, BZA Chair GCS