Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 6 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 28, 2024 Members present: Fricke, Freshman-Johnson, Rockey, Holdren Members absent: Hijar Also present: Jamieson, Cribari, Markowitz The meeting was called to order at 7:32 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 AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO SECTION 1340.11 MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES AND PREMISES, SPECIFICALLY AT 13 BELL STREET, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-13-057. Mr. Jamieson shared that the violation notice was sent pertaining to section 1340.11, maintenance of structures and premises, specifically that property pertaining to requirements for gutters on the building. Section 1340.11, maintenance of roofs, gutters, and downspouts, all roofs of every building shall be maintained weathertight and shall be equipped with gutters and downspouts connected to a public storm sewer. They received a complaint on September 18th, 2023, that the abutting property, 23 Bell Street LLC, was receiving water off the roof of 13 Bell Street as there was no gutter there to catch it and the building was suffering damage due to that. Dominic Cribari performed a building inspection to look at the property maintenance and found that there was no gutter on the building. He issued a notice of violation on November 7th to SWC Bicoastal Holdings LLC. The owner, Amy Weinfurtner, then asked for time to research the historical impact and different options but then submitted an appeal. Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Okay so I’d like to make a motion regarding the administrative appeal of parcel No. 931-13-057 located at 13 Bell Street. The administrative appeal under section 1111-01(b)(1) is an appeal to the decision of the notice of violation issued by the building department on November 7th, 2023, that according to section 1340.11, the maintenance of structures and premises require gutters. And this applies to all structures, both residential and commercial. And that is based under code 1340.01(b) for application to commercial buildings.  Page 2 of 6 Mr. Markowitz: “It also is 1340.06” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ And 1340.06. The violation issued by the building department is found to be to have interpreted the code correctly, and enforcing the code correctly in that all commercial buildings must have gutters. Unfortunately, this property, through all of its renovations in the last several years and other permitting and other inspections, was not found to be missing gutters as it did not fall under anybody's findings through all the processes. But unfortunately, has come to light by the landowner and the property owner adjacent. Both properties were issued these violations. The adjacent property has added the gutters as of today's meeting. And now the current appeal owner is waiting to see if this will be enforced. But the code does not distinguish historical property and therefore is not interpreting in an unreasonable or abuse of discretion to require that gutters must be installed on here. However, because it is historical, it is unique and the recommendation on the denial of this appeal, is to work on a reasonable solution for a historical building by gaining the proper understanding and information from professionals that can recommend a solution that works for this building in coordination with the requirements and the historical code in nature and intent of this village. So, in summary, the finding is that the administration has interpreted the code correctly and has not acted unreasonably and therefore the appeal is denied.” Mr. Fricke: “Is there a second to that motion?” Mr. Holdren: “Second” Mr. Fricke: “Roll call please” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “ These are always difficult for me. I think the building is spectacular. I think the business that's there now, is great, and we frequent there ourselves, but those are irrelevant to the decision before me. I will say as a footnote, I believe with an untrained eye that if there was a gutter under there, only the people in this room would ever know it because I think it’s possible to make something that does not make anyone feel any worse about the building. The question before us, did we error. No, I don’t think the village erred in its application of the code, so I vote in favor of the motion.” Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren?” Mr. Holdren: “Yeah, I guess when it comes down to what we’re here to vote on, I do think that the village acted correctly. So, I do… I don’t know what to do.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “You say aye.” Mr. Fricke: “Aye in favor of the motion.”  Page 3 of 6 Mr. Holdren: “But I do think that before gutters are put on, you know if you go through the ARB or talk with Rob, and there is like some kind of historical report done and it comes back to us that that's more testimony that you know we can evaluate like with the village hire someone to do that and then we look at it differently but right now I just think the way our code is written they have to have gutters. And I feel sorry for the neighbors next to it if any water damage does happen. But also, I don't want to design gutters to go on there because I don't know what would look good. Aye” Mr. Jamieson: “All right, Rockey” Mr. Rockey: “Aye for the reason stated” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ I do understand that the history here, the relationship is tumultuous, and I was here for the past other items and unfortunately, we always like when neighbors can be neighborly and figure things out and come to conclusions. But today, the administration, you know, when you see something, you have to do something and that is their responsibility and they acted appropriately after coming to realization of the information. So, I hope there is a path to get a proper historical evaluation of this bill. I am not a historical expert, so I don't know if gutters should be here or not and be treated so I think it's good to go get that we have a lot of you know involvement with historical professionals that can hopefully give you a path to a future decision on how to do this appropriately but for the reason stated in the motion I vote aye.” Mr. Fricke: “ Can I just ask a question before we close the record so is it accurate if ABR looks at this and says now a gutter would look horrible can they then appeal back to us?” Mr. Markowitz: “Can who appeal?” Mr. Fricke: “ Can the applicant?” Mr. Markowitz: “Well the applicant wouldn’t be appealing.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “No the ABR would give them the decision not to do them.” Mr. Markowitz: “But the neighbor could appeal.” Mr. Fricke: “Could the neighbor appeal?” Mr. Markowitz: “Yes.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Yes.” Mr. Holdren: “And then we would have more testimony from the ABR.”  Page 4 of 6 Mr. Jamieson: “And then we could also look at what gets opposed whether it even goes to ABR.” Mr. Holdren: “Yeah, and it’s a different thing.” Mr. Fricke: “ It’s a different, right, but it’s not res judicata if they get additional evidence that they didn’t know now.” Mr. Markowitz: “I’ll give you another twist, let's assume Rob determines that they do not need to go to the ABR, that decision can also be appealed by the property owner next door to your board. So, either way he decides, it's not necessarily the end.” Mr. Jamieson: “And any decision I make can be appealed.” Mr. Fricke: “ Right but I didn’t know you’d be deciding again. I guess I'm still thinking through that. Okay. All right, in any event, well, so what that means is for now the motion has passed. Rob's decision and Dominic's decision has been upheld. Our code allows the council has two weeks. They can consider appeal to what we've done. So, I guess that's actually 15 days. It keeps saying two weeks 15 days and that still applies here, correct?” Mr. Markowitz: “Correct, if three members of council petition to hear the matter, then they would have another hearing to determine whether or not the decision was correct or to order you to put in gutters.” REQUEST VARIANCES TO SECTION 1125.03(C) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATION; MAIN BUILDINGS: STREET FRONTAGE MINIMUM, AND SECTION 1125.03(F) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS: FRONT YARD SETBACK, SPECIFICALLY AT 71 STANRIDGE RD., PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-10-001. Mr. Jamieson explained that the Beringer’s are proposing a new replacement dwelling in this location. The previous dwelling has already been demolished with the property, so it is currently vacant property. There are two variances that would be required for what they have proposed. The first is section 1125.03(c), area, yard, and height regulations; Main buildings: street frontage minimum, requirement requires a hundred foot of street frontage in the zoning district. This parcel only has 54.4’, so they need a variance of 45.6’. The second variance, 1125.03(F), area, yard, and height regulations: Main buildings: front yard setback, requires a minimum setback of 50 feet and the proposed new replacement house has a front yard setback of 34 feet. So, a variance of 16 feet would be required. Mr. Holdren: “I'd like to make a motion for 71 Standridge Road to sections 1125.03(c) that requires the house in R -100 district to have 100 foot frontage street frontage and the current house has a 54.5 foot frontage so, they would need a 45.5 foot variance and then also to section 1125.03(f) that requires a 50 foot front yard setback and the current design has a 35 foot setback so they would need a 15 foot variance. I do not believe, well, no, actually I do believe these variances are substantial when you talk about 50-foot variance. I do not believe they're very  Page 5 of 6 substantial in this unique lot, it's a six-acre lot. This house is going to be pretty far from every single neighbor possible. So, I don't think it's substantial in that respect. The essential character of the neighborhood will not be altered by granting this variance. As we said there's a house there before and this house is in a similar footprint just slightly over the line now still very far from the neighbors and I don't think, I think no matter what is built on here they're gonna require a variance so they can build a tiny thousand square foot home they still need a variance So, I think the only way to get around this is by granting the variances.” Mr. Markowitz: “So your motion is both variances.” Mr. Holdren: “Both variances.” Mr. Fricke: “Is there a second to the motion?” Mr. Rockey: “Second” Mr. Jamieson: “Holdren? Mr. Holdren: “Aye for the reason stated” Mr. Jamieson: “Rockey” Mr. Rockey: “Aye for the reasons stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Aye for the reason stated” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “Aye for the reason stated and I would say, I think this is a very highly unique property, so I would like that to be included in my consideration. There are clearly issues that we've talked about that I don't think are dispositive to this issue and those can be discussed at a later time if and when necessary, so I vote aye. “So, what that means is the council has been heard as 15 days to consider a re -hearing of this issue. If that doesn't happen, any three council members can do that. If that doesn't happen, you'll receive notice from Rob close to the 15 days, close after that is expired, and you're good to go. So, 15 days is the waiting time.” MISCELLANEOUS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.  Page 6 of 6 Wade Fricke, BZA Chair GCS