Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

City of Hudson, Ohio Meeting Minutes - Final Board of Zoning & Building Appeals David Lehman, Chair John Dohner, Vice Chair Robert Drew Frederick Jahn Louis Wagner Kris McMaster, City Planner Nicholas Sugar, Associate Planner Matthew Vazzana, City Solicitor Thursday, September 20, 2018 7:30 PM Town Hall I. Call to Order Chairman Lehman called to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals at 7:30 p.m., in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of the State of Ohio, O.R.C. Section 121.22. II. Roll Call Present: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Lehman and Mr. Wagner III. Identification, by Chair Lehman, of Nick Sugar, Associate Planner; and Matthew Vazzana, City Solicitor. Except where otherwise noted, public notice as required in the Land Development Code was provided for all matters to come before this meeting of the City of Hudson Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. IV. Swearing in of Staff and Audience Addressing the Board. Mr. Vazzana swore-in staff and all the persons wishing to speak under oath. V. Approval of Minutes Chair Lehman welcomed eight high school students to the meeting, asked them to introduce themselves and stay through the first case. A. BZBA 8-16-2018Minutes of Previous Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting: August 16, 2018 Attachments: BZBA Minutes August 16, 2018 - Draft A motion was made by Mr. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Drew, that the August 16, 2018 minutes be approved as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Lehman and Mr. Wagner City of Hudson, Ohio Page 1 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final September 20, 2018 VI. Public Hearings - New Business Mr. Sugar affirmed to Chair Lehman that all due notices have been given. Chair Lehman stated that it is the obligation of the applicant to persuade the Board why a variance should be given from the Land Development Code. A. BZBA 2018-26 A request for a variance of two (2) feet from the maximum fence height in the side yard of four (4) feet above the elevation of the surface of the ground resulting in a six (6) foot fence in the side yard pursuant to Section 1206.03(a)(5) “Accessory Uses/Structures - Fences and Walls, Residential” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant and owners are James R. and Catherine E. Hackney, 38 Aurora Street, Hudson, OH 44236 for the property at 38 Aurora Street, Hudson, OH 44236 in District 4 [Historic Residential Neighborhood]. Attachments: BZBA 2018-26 Staff Report Mr. Sugar introduced this application for a replacement privacy fence which was constructed without a permit. Mr. Sugar also reviewed the finding from staff regarding the fence. Mr. Jim Hackney, 38 Aurora Street, homeowner, was present for the meeting. Mr. Hackney stated a fence existed for over 40 years in this location and that prior to the replacement, the old fence was in deplorable condition. The new fence was constructed using the same materials and in the same location as the previous fence. Mr. Hackney stated the compelling reason for the fence is that he and the adjoining neighbor's homes have outdoor living areas only separated by the driveway. The six-foot high fence creates a degree of privacy. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hackney stated: He is not aware of any other six-foot fences in the historic district. He did not believe there was space for creating privacy using landscaping, including living shrubbery. He did not know that a permit was required for the replacement fence. The Board, with assistance from Mr. Sugar and Mr. Vazzana discussed replacement / repair of a fence. It was determined from the Land Development Code that if over 50 percent of the fence is replaced or repaired, it is considered a replacement. The Board noted multiple variance requests in the past year for side yard fence variances, none of which has been approved. Chair Lehman opened the meeting for public comment. Mr. Mark Hannum, 70 College Street, stated that he would like, at least, the part of the six-foot fence that is along his back yard to be approved. Mr. Hannum also appreciates having this fence, that is in good condition, instead of the previous old fence. Seeing no one else wishing to make public comment, Chair Lehman closed public comments. Mr. Drew made a motion, that after reviewing the application, the hearing of evidence under oath, reviewing all documentary submissions of interested parties and by taking into consideration the personal knowledge of the property in question, the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals grant the requested variance. The motion died for lack of a second. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 2 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final September 20, 2018 This matter was denied Mr. Jahn made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner that after reviewing the application, the hearing of evidence under oath, reviewing all documentary submissions of interested parties and by taking into consideration the personal knowledge of the property in question, the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals deny the requested variance: The Board finds and concludes: 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return and there can be a beneficial use of the property without the requested variances as the fence is merely an accessory structure and separate from the main house. 2. The variance is substantial because the requested fence is a 50% increase over the four-foot fence that is allowed. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered and adjacent properties would suffer a substantial detriment if the variance is granted because it is uncommon in this neighborhood to have a fence of this height in the side yard and granting a 50% increase would be out of character. 4. The variances would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, (e.g. water, sewer, garbage). 5. The applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly can be resolved through some method other than the requested variance. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would not be observed and substantial justice would not be done by granting the variance. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Jahn and Mr. Wagner Nay: 2 - Mr. Drew and Mr. Lehman B. BZBA 2018-28 A request for a variance of seventeen (17) feet from the required thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback for corner lots resulting in an eighteen (18) foot side yard setback in order to build an attached three car garage pursuant to Section 1205.07(d)(6)(B)(vi) “Property Development/Design Standards - Minimum Side Yard Setback” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Al Klauss for Anthony Paskevich & Associates, 1708 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115 and the property owner is Michael O. Russell, 226 College Street, Hudson, OH 44236 for the property at 226 College Street, Hudson, OH 44236 in District 4 [Historic Residential Neighborhood]. Attachments: BZBA 2018-28 Staff Report Mr. Sugar introduced this application for the construction of a three-car garage to replace a garage built in 2006. The design of the proposed garage has been previously approved by the Architectural and Historic Board of City of Hudson, Ohio Page 3 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final September 20, 2018 Review. Mr. Al Klauss, Anthony Paskevich & Associates, was present for the meeting and discussion. Mr. Klauss stated this variance will allow the return of a historic circle driveway to the property and that the present garage is not in keeping with the historic nature of the house. Mr. Klauss introduced pictures to show the landscaping screening and an email from the Headmaster of Western Reserve Academy stating he will show support for the approval of this variance. Mr. Michael Russell, homeowner, stated he purchased the home with the intent to improve the existing structure and property. Mr. Russell stated that this application began eighteen months ago and many revisions and renderings have been done to arrive at today's solution, with the proposed garage in balance with the house, historically accurate, preserving existing landscaping and meeting the needs of this family. Chair Lehman opened the meeting for public comment. There were no public comments. The Board stated this is a well thought out major renovation to a significant home. Mr. Jahn made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner that after reviewing the application, the hearing of evidence under oath, reviewing all documentary submissions of interested parties and by taking into consideration the personal knowledge of the property in question, the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals grant the requested variance with the following conditions. 1. Existing vegetation/screening is to be preserved during construction of the addition. 2. Additional plantings are to be added to enhance screening when construction is complete. The Board finds and concludes: 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return and there can be a beneficial use of the property without the requested variance because the request is to essentially rebuild the current garage with certain modifications. 2. The variance is insubstantial when taking into account the overall size of the lot and the existing house footprint. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and adjacent properties would not suffer a substantial detriment if the variance is granted because the existing and proposed screening will conceal the addition from public view. 4. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, (e.g. water, sewer, garbage). 5. The applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some method other than the requested variance. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance because the project is well designed with consideration to the surrounding properties. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Lehman and Mr. Wagner C. BZBA 2018-29 A request for a variance(s) to allow for an accessory structure pavilion to be City of Hudson, Ohio Page 4 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final September 20, 2018 located in a floodplain pursuant to Section 1205.14 “Floodplain/Floodway Overlay District” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Ernest D. Roma, Club Manager for Lake Forest Country Club, 100 Lake Forest Drive, Hudson, OH 44236 and the owner is Lake Forest Country Club, 100 Lake Forest Drive, Hudson, OH 44236 for the property at 100 Lake Forest Drive, Hudson, OH 44236 in District 3 [Outer Village Residential Neighborhood]. Attachments: BZBA 2018-29 Staff Report Mr. Sugar introduced this application regarding a golf cart pavilion below the base flood elevation and noted the code requires the structure to be above the base flood elevation. However, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) determined the structure closely mimics a farm purpose structure and is allowable with the conditions as summarized by Mr. Thom Sheridan, Hudson Flood Plain Manager, in an attached document. Mr. Sugar also noted a supplement to the packet from OHM Advanced Communities. Mr. Ernest Roma, Lake Forest Country Club manager, was present for the meeting and agreed to all the conditions presented by Mr. Sheridan and ODNR, including a sealed electrical system, the transformer being located near the clubhouse, flood alarms and yearly inspections. Mr. Sheridan, stated that he believes the flood of 2003 water level was about 4 or 5 feet in this area. Chair Lehman opened the meeting for public comment, there were no public comments. After reviewing the application, the hearing of evidence under oath, reviewing all documentary submissions of interested parties and by taking into consideration the personal knowledge of the property in question, the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals grants the requested variance with the following conditions: 1. All conditions are met per the letter submitted by Assistant City Manager Thomas Sheridan dated September 14, 2018 regarding the FEMA Floodplain Review for the Lake Forest Country Club Golf Cart Barn. The Board finds and concludes: 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return and there can be a beneficial use of the property without the requested variance, however, granting the variance will allow the Country Club to operate more efficiently. 2. The variance is substantial, however, the required conditions will reduce the overall impact. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and adjacent properties would not suffer a substantial detriment if the variance is granted because the location of the building will be out of public view. The open sided nature of the structure will also have a reduced impact on the overall floodplain. 4. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, (e.g. water, sewer, garbage). 5. The applicant purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction. The property was purchased well before the zoning code was in effect. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some method other than the requested variance. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 5 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final September 20, 2018 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance because this is the best solution for the applicant’s predicament and the required conditions will protect the property owner and community as a whole. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Lehman and Mr. Wagner VII. Other Business Mr. Vazzana reviewed the status of: 1. The Land Development Code update, which will take place in three phases, administrative, commercial and finally residential. 2. The 102 Aurora Street appeal. Mr. Sheridan reviewed for the Board: 1. Downtown Phase II project. 2. Velocity Broadband activity. 3. The FEMA, CRS program, which may reduce insurance rates for Hudson residents. 4. The Connectivity plans. 5. Many capital and long-term projects. This matter was discussed VIII. Adjournment A motion was made by Mr. Jahn, seconded by Mr. Dohner, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by an unanimous vote. Chair Lehman adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. ________________________________ David W. Lehman, Chair ________________________________ John M. Dohner, Vice Chair ________________________________ Joe Campbell, Executive Assistant Upon approval by the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals, this official written summary of the meeting minutes shall become a permanent record, and the official minutes shall also consist of a permanent audio and video recording, excluding executive sessions, in accordance with Codified Ordinances, Section 252.04, Minutes of Architectural and Historic Board of Review, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, and Planning Commission. * * * City of Hudson, Ohio Page 6 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final September 20, 2018 City of Hudson, Ohio Page 7