Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 5 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 23, 2024 Members present: Fricke, Freshman-Johnson, Rockey, Holdren, Hijar Members absent: None Also present: Jamieson, Cribari, Matheny 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. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.04(d)(1) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATION; ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, RECREATIONAL USES, SWIMMING POOLS, SPECIFICALLY AT 103 RIDGEWOOD RD., PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-12-016. Mr. Jamieson shared that this application for a swimming pool at 103 Ridgewood Road was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 23rd, 2024. The board voted 3-1 to approve the variance to allow that plan as originally presented. After the BZA vote, they received petitions from three members of Village Council to review the decision of BZA and a public hearing was held by council on February 28th, 2024, to review the decision. Upon council review, they voted 7-0 to overturn the decision of the BZA and the variance was therefore denied as originally presented. They received plans on April 2nd for a revised plan which moves more of the pool to the backyard. Mr. Matheny explained that the first decision of the board is to determine if the new revised plan is materially different than the original plan. Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ I’ll make a motion to review proposal 932-12-016 in the R100 zoning district. A reevaluation of previously litigated items to determine whether it can be relitigated. We should identify whether or not there has been a change in circumstance or materially different impact to the plan set before us. As we have discussed there has been no change in circumstances. However, the movement of the pool further to the southeast side, moves the pool into a significant amount of the pool into the backyard, now measuring approximately 70% in the  Page 2 of 5 backyard and only 30% in the side yard, whereas the previous plan had 85% in the side yard and only 15% I the backyard. The change is 55% less, which equals a 64.9% change, which can be considered materially different. It’s greater than 50% of a change and in past experience, after years on the board, we have identified materiality as way less than this amount and this measurement in all circumstances that we reviewed. And if you move the pool even another 10 feet, you could have almost the whole thing in the backyard. And so, this was a significant material calculation in the movement of this pool. And as discussed, the purpose of use is not at play here and it's just to consider whether it is considered material at material change to the plan. And for those calculation amounts I present that these changes are material different, and it become approved.” Mr. Holdren: “Second” Mr. Fricke: “or considered as material so that we can consider whether the use variance or area variance would not be applicable” Mr. Jamieson: “Motion by Freshman-Johnson, second by Holdren. Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “No” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “Yes, I think the change from previously 15 % in the backyard to now 70% is material.” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “I vote yes, so I think it's material as well” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Yes it’s material” Mr. Holdren: “I vote aye.” Mr. Fricke: “So we've made a determination by 4-1 that material changes have been made so that it can be considered, it's considered de novo, right? We're starting anew.” Mr. Fricke explained that they must go through the Duncan Factors to determine if they can allow the variance for the pool plans. Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ The variance requested for parcel 932-12-016, located at 103 Ridgewood, regarding Section 1125.04, area yard and height regulation, accessories building structures, recreational use of swimming pools require that they should be only located in the rear yards. In  Page 3 of 5 this particular case, the proposed swimming pool extends 17 feet into the side yard, sorry. So, the variance would need to be 17 feet. As the pool stands, the total length of that pool, what was that again, I'm sorry. 17 feet represents approximately only 30 % of the pool, I'll call it that. Represents approximately only 30 % of the pool. So, the variance would be only for that particular amount as the rest of the pool is located in the backyard and therefore is compliant. Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether they can have any beneficiaries to the property, of course they can have a reasonable return. This is in addition to an amenity area. The problem of adding this amenity shall they decide to do so is that it's not reasonable to put it in any other place that it could be fully placed in the backyard for two reasons. One, the current amenity space that was built many years ago, is already designed and outlined to have outdoor access to this area of the house. And to cut off that accessibility creates logistics and other complications of flow and reasonable use. Secondly, by moving the pool just a little bit back, another 17 feet, you start to deal with slope and other issues in the area of the yard that starts to raise up or go down into the ravine and digging into the hillside is not possible and would be detrimental to the area even more so than where the current pool is proposed. And for those reasons, if they are going to do a pool, it will only yield a reasonable return in the area that they have proposed. The variance is substantial in the sense that it's 30 percent, However, comparatively to other substantial variances that we have granted and have reviewed in many, many years, this is a reasonable substantial request and is very customary for us to review this. It is less substantial by almost 70 % than it was before. And the homeowner has taken considerable options to try to obviate this through any circumstances that is reasonable for both the homeowner and for the planning and zoning of our city. The essential character of the neighborhood would actually be enhanced by enhanced landscaping and into that area and proper control of the ravine and added foliage to the area. It could actually better the neighborhood. As anybody who's improving their residents, everybody in the area benefits from that as the real estate values increase, not only for that property, but for the properties that surround it. The variance would not adversely affect delivery of governmental services. The property built this house four years ago, not planning on the full, therefore they didn't realize at the time that they would have a zoning issue with this later added on desire. The property owner's predicament physically obviated. We have discussed that the location of this has been a compromise to move it as far back to deal with the slope and the area of the side and backyard and it is located at the farthest away from all of the residents located in the area and moving it at other places would again be not reasonable for the use and also just as close to another neighbor rather than the other ones on the other side. This is a large lot and it's lucky to have been able to accommodate this who's still a very expansive distance between all neighbors no matter what. The design of this house would be in the spirit and behind the zoning requirement. There have been many variances that we have given to people who want to better their house. They don't need to better their house, and this falls in the same category of the desire to invest and into the real estate that is here in Chagrin Falls. The variance is based on circumstances that are self -created, just as all variances are, because all people want to better their house for the value of their life and their home and the value of their real estate. And for those reasons I move.” Mr. Fricke: “Is there a second?” Ms. Hijar: “I second”  Page 4 of 5 Mr. Fricke: “Roll call” Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “Aye, for reasons stated, all these Duncan Factors, you know, we don’t really need all of them, but the most important one on most of the variances we grant is the spirit and intent behind the zoning code. And I think granting this variance does its justice by allowing them to have partial part of the pool into the side yard.” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “I vote aye for the reason stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “ I vote aye as well. I think that this fails most of the Duncan factors. However, we only need one or two, or one frankly. I think that the character of the neighborhood, I think this is a highly unique piece of property, highly unique. I'm not insensitive to the concerns of neighbors that were eloquently expressed. I would hope, it looks to me like your plan shows a boxwood row along the woods, perhaps something more significant that can be placed along the woods but I would also point to what Jim said normally would be talking about neighbors who are five feet away or ten feet away looking into a pool that might be perfectly situated in the backyard so I think it's a highly unique piece of property I think the neighborhood largely will benefit from the screening and again I would hope the wood line if needed would have perhaps more screening and to be sensitive to the to the neighbor's concern, so I would vote aye for the seasons of the motion, reasons already spoken, and for those additional reasons.” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “ Aye. Again, I really, I don’t believe this is a substantial variance and I appreciate that the owner has come back to try to make a compromise. And you know, I do think it is a unique piece of property. It's a unique street in Chagrin and it will just improve the neighborhood.” Mr. Jamieson: “Rockey?” Mr. Rockey: “So I don’t think you’ve, I think the only Duncan Factor that you guys have spoken any to is whether it affects government services. I obviously the property has reasonable return. The variance in my mind is substantial because the ordinance says you can't have it in the side yard at all. You know, the essential character of the neighborhood, it's questionable, but I think that by observing the zoning code, you meet the substantial, you uphold the character of the neighborhood. The property, I believe, was purchased and built understanding the zoning codes, it can be obfuscated through another method. It's, there's no substantial justice done by granting this and it's self-created. So, for all those reasons, I vote no.”  Page 5 of 5 Mr. Fricke: “ All right. Well, you've been through this drill before in 15 days during which council could entertain to re-hear this whole thing to no vote. And I guess the question remains whether they can review whether they even believe that the plan submitted is materially different. So, the council might get two cracks added if they so choose. So, you'll have to wait 15 days to hear whether council acts further. But as far as the board is concerned, we are concluded.” MISCELLANEOUS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Wade Fricke, BZA Chair MNM