Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

City of Hudson, Ohio Meeting Minutes - Final Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Robert Drew, Chair John Dohner, Vice Chair Frederick Jahn Jeffrey Minar Louis Wagner Nick Sugar, Associate Planner Matthew Vazzana, City Solicitor Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:30 PM Town Hall I. Call to Order Chairman Drew 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. Minar and Mr. Wagner III. Identification, by Chairman Drew of: Nick Sugar, Associate Planner; and Matthew Vazzana, City Solicitor. 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 A. BZBA 1-17-2019Minutes of Previous Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting: January 17, 2019 Attachments: BZBA Minutes January 17, 2019 - draft Mr. Dohner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2019 meeting, as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner VI. Public Hearings - New Business A. BZBA 5441 A request for variances to permit construction of a residential addition and accessory structure detached garage. The requests are: 1] a variance to allow an accessory structure detached garage to be located in the side yard when code permits accessory structures to City of Hudson, Ohio Page 1 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final February 21, 2019 be located only in the rear yard pursuant to Section 1205.04(d)(7) (C)(ii), “Building Siting and Orientation - Private Garages”; and 2] a variance of fifteen (15) feet from the required fifty (50) foot rear yard setback resulting in a thirty-five (35) foot rear yard setback for a house addition pursuant to Section 1205.04(d)(5)(D)(i) “Property Development/Design Standards - Rear Yard Setbacks” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Samantha Ayotte for Peninsula Architects, 1775 Main Street, Peninsula, OH 44264 and the property owners are Susan K. and Ryan A. Kowalske 2445 Danbury Lane, Hudson, OH 44236 for the property at 2445 Danbury Lane, Hudson, OH 44236 in District 1 [Suburban Residential Neighborhood]. Attachments: BZBA 2019-5441 Staff Report Updated House Plans 2-20-19 Mr. Sugar introduced the application for a home built in 1974 and purchased in 2017 by the current owners. The variances requested are for an addition that encroaches into the rear yard setback and a detached garage that is proposed for the side yard, that the LDC requires be in the rear yard. Mr. Sugar noted that part of the existing house voilates the rear yard setback and that the house was originally platted to face Lexington Drive, this was changed to face Danbury Drive, resulting in the violation of the rear yard setback. Mr. Sugar stated that the detached garage at 30-feet, has more depth than a typical 24-foot garage and noted that if the depth was reduced it would alleviate the setback into the side yard. The elevations before BZBA reflect comments from the Architectural and Historic Board of Review from February 13, 2019. In response to the Board's question, Mr. Sugar noted that a detached garage may have front facing garage doors. Mr. Nik Sirna, Peninsula Architects was present for the meeting and explained that the homeowner's father lives on the second floor and has fallen down the steps two times. The family wishes to build a bedroom on the first floor that is ADA accessible and may someday be considered a master bedroom. Because of the corner lot and the placement of the house on the lot, a functional addition cannot be built without a variance. Mr. Sirna noted that for the detached garage, the topography does not allow it to be moved backwards. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Sirna stated this is a 548 square foot addition to the approximately 2100 square foot home, the space above the addition will be attic storage and that the purpose for the rear porch is for the grandfather's enjoyment and better access to the backyard. Mr. Sirna noted that the homeowners are requesting the 30-foot depth for the garage to allow two vehicles and storage of family possessions and that even a standard 24-foot garage would require a variance. The Board and Mr. Sirna agreed that corner lots are difficult and then discussed options regarding the placement and orientation of the garage as well as the possibility of storing possessions off-site or above the proposed addition. Board members noted that the 30-foot depth of the proposed garage was their principle concern. Mr. Vazzana and the Board discussed that the variance request is for a detached garage that encroaches on the setback. The Board could approve the variance with condition(s) on the size. Chair Drew opened the meeting for public comments. Ms. Susan Kowalski, 2445 Danbury Drive, testified that she has lived here since 2004 and purchased the home from her family in 2017. Ms. Kowalski said it is important to the family that her father to be able to continue living with them. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 2 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final February 21, 2019 Mr. Ryan Kowalski, 2445 Danbury Drive, explained the reasons for the addition and that the attic space would be for storage. Mr. Kowalski also noted the potential for seven drivers and seven vehicles as his children begin driving. The larger garage will allow some of these vehicles to be off the driveway and will replace the shed for storage. Ms. Janet Groborchik, 7649 Lexington Drive, stated she lives in the house behind 2445 Danbury Drive, and is concerned about looking at the bump-out in the rear of the home which will be close to their house. Ms. Groborchik does not have concerns about the garage, since it does not affect her property but is concerned for her neighbor's view. She stated she would like the established rules followed, especially regarding this front facing garage that is not ascetically pleasing and will be a dramatic change in this property. Ms. Shannon Eizenberg 7678 Forbush Circle, believes the garage and addition would be positive additions to the property and neighborhood while improving the view from her home. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Drew closed the public hearing. In response to the Board Mr. Kowalski said he considers this one project and would like the variances given or denied as a whole. The Board, Mr. Sirna and Mr. Kowalske discussed alternative sizes to the proposed garage as conditions to granting the variance, including making it wider with less depth. Details of a redesigned building would go before the AHBR. Variance number one: Mr. Dohner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jahn, 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 grants the variance requested with the following conditions: 1. The detached garage shall not protrude from the current rear building line of the house towards Danbury more than ten (10) feet 2. The detached garage shall not have a building footprint of more than six hundred twenty (620) square feet. 3. The rear of the proposed garage shall be no closer to the rear property line than shown in the application. 4. Any exposed block on the rear or sides of the structure shall be adequately screened from neighboring properties. 5. No living quarters for human habitation shall be allowed now or in the future for the subject structure. 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, the applicants have given testimony of their needs for storage and additional living space due to their growing family and the request is a practical solution. 2. The variance is substantial, but necessary due to the unique orientation of the property. The property is unique, as it is not only a corner lot, but is oriented in a different direction than surrounding homes. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and City of Hudson, Ohio Page 3 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final February 21, 2019 adjacent properties would not suffer a substantial detriment if the variance is granted. 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 with the conditions imposed. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. The motion to approve variance number one was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner Variance number two: 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 variance requested. 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, however, the applicants have given testimony of their needs for storage and additional living space due to their growing family and the request is a practical solution. 2. The variance is insubstantial because it is only a thirty (30) percent variance request. 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 proposed addition does not significantly extend into the rear yard. 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 of the unusual nature of the lot, the position of the house, and its pre-existing encroachment. The motion to approve variance number two was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mr. Jahn, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner VII. Other Business VIII. Adjournment A motion was made by Wagner, seconded by Jahn, that the meeting be adjourned. The City of Hudson, Ohio Page 4 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final February 21, 2019 motion carried by an unanimous vote. Mr. Drew adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. ________________________________ Robert P. Drew, 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 5