Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

City of Hudson, Ohio Meeting Minutes - Final Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Robert Drew, Chair John Dohner, Vice Chair Kerri Keller Jeffrey Minar Louis Wagner Greg Hannan, Community Development Director Amanda Davey, Associate Planner Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:30 PM Via Video-Conference & Live Stream 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. Election of Officers A motion was made by Mr. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Minar, that Mr. Dohner be elected as Vice Chair. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner II. Election of Officers A motion was made by Mr. Wagner, seconded by Mr. Dohner, that Mr. Drew be elected as Chair. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner III. Roll Call Present: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner IV. Identification, by Chairman, of Greg Hannan, Community Development Director and Amanda Davey, Associate Planner. V. Swearing in of Staff and Audience Addressing the Board. Chair Drew swore in Mr. Greg Hannan and Ms. Amanda Davey. VI. Approval of Minutes BZBA Minutes of Previous Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting: 12-17-2020 December 17, 2020. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 1 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 Attachments: December 17, 2020 Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Mr. Wagner, seconded by Mrs. Keller, that the December 21, 2020 Minutes be approved as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner VII. Public Hearings - New Business Chair Drew announced this meeting was available via-public live stream BZBA 2020-1051Variance requests in order to allow construction of a self-storage building. The variances are 1] a variance from the requirement to provide sidewalks for new development pursuant to Section 1205.11(e)(9)(B)(1), “Property Development/Design Standards - Pedestrian Amenities/Linkages - Sidewalks”, 2] A variance from the requirement that the use or building housing such use shall be located a minimum of five hundred (500) feet away from the lot line of any residential use in pursuant to Section 1206.02(c)(16), “Conditional Uses: Special Conditions and Standards - Special Conditions Addressing Compatibility.” And 3] A variance of eight (8) feet from the required fifty (50) foot front yard setback resulting in a forty-two (42) foot front yard setback in pursuant to Section 1205.11(e)(3)(A), “Property Development/Design Standards - Setbacks” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Joe Salemi, 10121 Northfield Road, Northfield, Ohio 44067. The property owner is Salemi/Redi Wash Family Limited partnership, 10121 Northfield Road, Northfield, Ohio 44067 for the properties at 5698 Hudson Drive District 8 [Industrial/Business Park]. Attachments: 2020-1051 BZBA Packet Ms. Davey updated the Board with information requested at the previous meeting including: 1) Variances for sidewalks at 1764 and 1800 Georgetown Road with the condition of money in lieu of building the sidewalks. 2) District 8, which includes the salt dome, requires sidewalks on one side of the road. The sidewalks were already in place and the salt dome was considered a governmental use which is a permitted use. 3) A realistic cost for building this sidewalk cannot be provided by the City and the applicant did not provide a revised estimate. 4) The cost of a partial sidewalk along Terex Road could entail larger future costs. 5) Statements from other communities regarding the applicant’s effect on neighboring properties. Mr. Salemi noted that a private estimate of the cost of the sidewalk would require a full engineering study, which is the most expensive aspect of this sidewalk and does not make economic sense. Mr. Salemi also stated the Ohio Revised Code does not allow assessing the property owner more than 35 percent of the cost of the sidewalks. Mr. Salemi commented that to his knowledge no complaints were lodged by citizens in other communities, no complaints were voiced by the closest residence at the December BZBA meeting and the setbacks have dictated the size of the building and their locations. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 2 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 The Board and Mr. Salemi discussed the requested sidewalk variance and it being the applicant’s responsibility to bring proposed solutions to the Board. The Board noted the applicants proposed solution is a complete waiving of the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Salemi stated the solution is, if the sidewalk is put in, it will be the Metro Parks who pay and if the City decides to put sidewalks down Terex Road, the City may assess Mr. Salemi thirty-five percent of the cost. Mr. Salemi stated he believes the City requirement is opposed to court rulings. The Board, Mr. Salami and staff discussed: 1) The Georgetown Road variance with Mr. Hannan stating the applicant was required to submit a certified Engineer’s estimate of the cost of the Georgetown sidewalk. That amount of money was given to the City. 2) The Board noted no alternatives have been offered by this applicant. 3) Mr. Salemi responded by noting there is no economic value to the property if he is required to spend $ 160,000 to $180,000 on sidewalks and the alternative solution the City has is to assess him 35-percent of the cost of the sidewalks. 4) Court rulings regarding taking of properties and the property being zoned prior to the purchase of the property. The Board noted its responsibility is to determine if there is a compelling reason to grant a variance and so far, no compelling reason has been offered. Chair Drew placed everyone speaking under oath. The Board and Mr. Salemi the highest and best use of the property as compared to a reasonable return on the property . Mr. Salemi stated the financial information will show a reasonable return cannot be achieved if he is required to spend $180,000 on the sidewalks. Chair Drew noted BZBA is to look at Hudson laws and determine if variances may be granted, which may take place with two of the three variances requested. With the sidewalk variance, the precedent available to the Board is the Georgetown sidewalks and the payment in lieu made by the developer. The Board discussed concern over setting the precedent of reduced amounts of money being contributed to the sidewalk fund. The Board questioned Mr. Hannan regarding the City installing sidewalks and assessing Mr. Salemi a portion of the cost . Mr. Hannan stated he was unaware of any plan for the City to install sidewalks and share the cost with a homeowner. Mr. Hannan also stated he is aware of Summit Metro Parks having interested in the rail corridor; however, he is not aware of any interest in installing sidewalks. Mr. Hannan also stated he has provided Mr. Salemi with uses allowed in District 8 and since the design of the sidewalk is not complete, cost savings may be found when engineered. Chair Drew opened the meeting for public comment. There were no public comments. The Board discussed the variance approval process. Mr. Salemi requested the Board rule on variances two and three before considering variance one. 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, Mr. Dohner made motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant the following variance with three conditions: A dimensional variance from the requirement that the proposed self-storage building shall be located a minimum setback of five hundred (500) feet away from any residentially used lot line in pursuant to Section 1206.02(c)(16), “Conditional Uses: Special Conditions and Standards - Special Conditions Addressing Compatibility “ of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. 1. The applicant will develop this property in accordance with the plans he has submitted or plans substantially similar. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 3 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 2. A subsequent owner may use the plans submitted or plans substantially similar. 3. If the first two conditions are not met, the variance will be null and void. 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 variance. 2. The variance is insubstantial due to the property having Terex Road in between the residential used lot line to the North, and the South residential use is a non-conforming. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. 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 requirements. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some method other than granting the variance. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner 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, Mr. Dohner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant the following variance with three conditions: A variance of eight (8) feet from the required fifty (50) foot front yard setback resulting in a forty-two (42) foot front yard setback in pursuant to Section 1205.11(e)(3)(A), “Property Development/Design Standards - Setbacks” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. 1. The applicant will develop this property in accordance with the plans he has submitted or plans substantially similar. 2. A subsequent owner may use the plans submitted or plans substantially similar. 3. If the first two conditions are not met, the variance will be null and void. The Board finds and concludes; 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return and can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. 2. The variance is insubstantial due the variance representing only 16% of the requirement. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance because the location is unique as it is at the end of a dividing highway on Terex Road. 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 requirements. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 4 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some other method other than granting the variance. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. It would allow the development of the property with very minimal impact on the surrounding properties. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner Following variance two and three being approved, Chair Drew explained Mr. Salemi’s options with regard to variance three. Mr. Salemi requested a continuance on variance three. The Board discussed the continuance request. Mr. Dohner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner, to grant the applicants request to continue variance one. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller and Mr. Wagner Nay: 1 - Mr. Minar BZBA 2020-1035A request for variances pertaining to the development of a subdivision on Norton Road. The variances are 1] a variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance, including clearing of vegetation within stream corridors, wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03(c), “Prohibited Activities”, and 2] A variance of twenty (20) feet from the required fifty (50) foot setback resulting in a thirty (30) foot setback pursuant to section 1207.03(e) (2), “Setbacks - Wetlands”, and 3] A variance to allow a new street intersection that is proposed at fifty five (55) feet from an already existing street intersection, when the Land Development Code states intersections for new streets should be a minimum of four hundred (400) lineal feet from any intersection, this would require a three hundred and forty-five (345) foot variance in pursuant to section 1207.13(c)(5)(E), “Streets and Easements and Alleyways - Curb Cuts and Intersections” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Tony Lunardi with LDA Builders, 6683 Olde Eight Road, Peninsula, OH 44264, the property owner is LDA Land Group LLC Group for parcels 3001868, 3003333, 3000882, 3003332 District 1 [Suburban Residential Neighborhood]. Attachments: 20-1035 BZBA Packet Ms. Davey introduced the application by displaying the site plan on 12.87 acres with 11 lots on a cul-de-sac. This City of Hudson, Ohio Page 5 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 application was reviewed by Planning Commission and found compatible with the adjacent development. Ms. Davey then reviewed the variance requests, reasons for the requests and considerations. Mr. Tony Lunardi, LDA Builders and Mr. Dennis Stoffer, Professional Surveyor, were present for the meeting and sworn in by Chair Drew. Mr. Lunardi reviewed the reports contained in the staff report and explained the wetlands request. The Board discussed the intersection variance including what options were explored, the safety concerns of unaligned streets including the traffic studies in relation to the neighbor’s concerns, increased traffic, the minimum number of homes Mr. Lunardi is willing to build as well as the size of the eleven proposed lots. The Board and staff discussed the houses and pond affected by the wetlands. Chair Drew acknowledged correspondence from two affected property owners: Mrs. Shortridge and Mr. Robinson, these have been read by Board members and are part of the official record. There were no other public comments. Chair Drew closed the meeting public comments. The Board discussed the intersection and safety issues connected with the intersection, the house closest to the wetlands on lot number six and the shape of the wetlands. 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 based on the evidence presented to the Board, Mr. Wagner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Minar, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant: A variance of twenty (20) feet from the required fifty (50) foot setback resulting in a thirty (30) foot setback pursuant to section 1207.03(e)(2), “Setbacks - Wetlands” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code, in order to build on lots #6 and #7. The Board finds and concludes; 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return but cannot be beneficial without the variance in the context of this project of building eleven sub lots, without the granting of the variance. 2. The variance is insubstantial due the variance representing only 40% of the requirement. Additionally, the setback intrusion of the wetlands is only on two of the eleven sublots. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. 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 requirements; however, the applicant did not know the extent of the wetlands on the property. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some other method as it was discussed to remove lot #6, but this would cause the applicant to not be able to move forward with the project. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 6 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner The Board and Mr. Lunardi discussed the effect of not allowing a house to be built on lot number 6. Mr. Lunardi stated with only 10 houses, the development would not be built. 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. Mr. Minar made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant: A variance to allow a new street intersection that is proposed at fifty five (55) feet from an already existing street intersection, when the Land Development Code states intersections for new streets should be a minimum of four hundred (400) lineal feet from any intersection, requiring a three hundred and forty-five (345) foot variance pursuant to section 1207.13(c)(5)(E), “Streets and Easements and Alleyways - Curb Cuts and Intersections” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The Board finds and concludes: 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return and there can be beneficial use without the variance; however, the project would not be developed without the granting of the variance. 2. The variance is substantial in terms of a lineal extent and the difference of 400 feet separation and 55 feet separation; however, taking in consideration the limited amount of traffic anticipated and the finding of the traffic impact analysis, the impact would be minimal. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. 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 other method. It was discussed to construct the new intersection to the East side; however, this would also require a variance. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement is to make sure that new intersections are being constructed at a safe distance. However, Norton Road has multiple street intersections, causing difficulty for the applicant to reach the required 400 lineal feet. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner 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, Mr. Minar made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant: A variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance, including clearing of vegetation within stream corridors, wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03(c), “Prohibited Activities”, of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The Board finds and concludes: City of Hudson, Ohio Page 7 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 1. The property in question will not yield a reasonable return and cannot be beneficial without the variance because the applicant is requesting an 11-parcel subdivision and that is what is needed to make a profitable return on their investment. 2. The variance is substantial; however, the wetlands being impacted are of the lower classifications of wetlands. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. 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 other method. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance because the applicant has proposed the vast majority of the higher-grade wetlands will be intact. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner BZBA 2020-1095A request for variances in order to permit an internally illuminated wall sign and two (2) permanent ground signs. The requests are 1] A variance to permit an internally illuminated sign on a building that has a front lot line setback of three hundred (300) feet which is less than the required front lot line building setback of five hundred (500) feet for District 6, resulting in a variance of two hundred (200) feet in pursuant to section 1207.17(g)(1)(B)(2), “Sign Illumination, Construction and Maintenance Standards - Internal Illumination” 2] A variance to permit an additional ground sign on a parcel that has a frontage of one hundred and sixty-eight feet (168) feet which is less than the required frontage of three hundred (300) feet for District 6 to allow a total of two (2) ground signs, resulting in a variance of one hundred and thirty-two (132) feet in pursuant to section 1207.17(d)(4)(B), “Permanent Ground Signs - Additional Ground Signs” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Jim Scherer - A Sign Above, 8982 Dutton Drive, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087. The property owner is Manneschi & Benedetti Properties LLC, 9155 Dutton Drive, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 for the property at 6336 Hudson Crossing Parkway in District 6 [Western Hudson Gateway] Attachments: 2020-1095 BZBA Packet Mr. Jim Scherer, A Sign Above, Mr. Bruno Cranano, CFO, CEIA USA, and Linda Sherman, CEO of CEIA USA, were present for the meeting. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 8 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 Ms. Davey introduced the application by displaying the site plan, explaining the variance requests and the applicable Land Development Code sections. Ms. Davey also reviewed staff comments and considerations. Mr. Scherer described the reasons for requesting the illuminated signs which included distinguishing between the truck entrance and exit on the cul-de-sac. The Board and Mr. Scherer discussed the internally illuminated building sign which allows for greater safety and a wider viewing angle with the same brightness as the adjoining building’s sign. The Board and Mr. Cranaio discussed the business operating hours, the shape of the property, the large size of the building and the need for the variances. 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, Ms. Keller made a motion, seconded by Mr. Dohner to grant the following variances: 1. A variance to permit an internally illuminated sign on a building that has a front lot line setback of three hundred (300) feet which is less than the required front lot line building setback of five hundred (500) feet for District 6, resulting in a variance of two hundred (200) feet in pursuant to section 1207.17(g)(1)(B)(2), “Sign Illumination, Construction and Maintenance Standards - Internal Illumination” 2. A variance to permit an additional ground sign on a parcel that has a frontage of one hundred and sixty-eight feet (168) feet which is less than the required frontage of three hundred (300) feet for District 6 to allow a total of two (2) ground signs, resulting in a variance of one hundred and thirty-two (132) feet in pursuant to section 1207.17(d)(4)(B), “Permanent Ground Signs - Additional Ground Signs” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. . The Board finds and concludes: 1. The property in question will yield a reasonable return and can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. 2. The variances are insubstantial due to it representing 40% of the requirement for internally illuminated signs, and 44% of the requirement for the frontage to allow an additional permanent ground sign. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance because the signs will be well suited without impacting the adjacent properties. 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 requirements. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly can be resolved through some other method other than granting the variance, however; grating the variances would be the best option given the circumstances of the location of the building being at the end of a cul-de-sac and the property having two curb cuts. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner City of Hudson, Ohio Page 9 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 BZBA 2020-1111A request for variances pertaining to the filling of a pond located within a stream corridor. The variances are 1] A variance of fifty (50) feet from the required stream corridor setback of fifty (50) feet resulting in a zero-setback pursuant to section 1207.03(e)(1)(C), “Wetland/Stream Corridor Protection - Stream Corridor Setbacks” 2] A variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance, including clearing of vegetation within stream corridors, wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03(c), “Prohibited Activities” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Theresa Boylan - My Old World, 7056 Mears Gate Drive, North Canton, OH 44720. The property owner is Paul and Nicole Vikan, 1200 Frank E Rodgers Boulevard South, Harrison, New Jersey 07029, for the property at Darrow Road and Herrick Park Drive, Parcel Number 3003011 District 1 [Suburban Residential Neighborhood] Attachments: 2020-1111 BZBA Packet Ms. Davey introduced the application by displaying the site plan and noting this a renewal of a variance which was granted on October 18, 2018. Since then an administrative lot split has been approved but is still awaiting recording at Summit County. Ms. Davey also described the property, stream corridor, pond and reviewed the applicable LDC sections as well as staff comments and considerations. Mr. Regiman, Old World Custom Homes, and Mr. Vican were sworn in by Chair Drew and explained the variance request being so the yard can be usable. Ms. Davey stated the variance is substantially the same as the 2018 variance which was prompted because the previous owner attempted to drain the pond without approvals. Mr. Victor Fowler, 7754 Herrick Park Drive, was sworn in by Mr. Drew and noted his property is directly across from the subject property. Mr. Fowler stated the original owner made the pond because of wetness on the property. Mr. Fowler also noted construction on Rt. 91 is causing flooding on many of the yards in the area including his. Mr. Fowler is concerned that the development on Rt. 91 and the additional impervious surface will cause more runoff and damage to properties. Chair Drew requested the applicant respond to Mr. Fowler’s comments. Mr. Regiman stated if the stream in the back of the property needs dredging, which the homeowner will approve. Ms. Davey stated the ditch needs to be dredged and a meeting is planned which may lead to funding and approval from Council. However, this pond is not serving as a storm water retention pond. The applicant was questioned regarding waiting until the property is studied to ensure future damage will not be done by draining the pond. Mr. Regiman stated delaying the filling of the pond will cause a significant hardship for the property owner. 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, and recognizing no significant changes have taken place since a similar variance request was granted on October 18, 2018; Mr. Dohner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wagner, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant the following variances with conditions: 1. A variance of fifty (50) feet from the required stream corridor setback of fifty (50) feet resulting in a City of Hudson, Ohio Page 10 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 zero-setback pursuant to section 1207.03(e)(1)(C), “Wetland/Stream Corridor Protection - Stream Corridor Setbacks” 2. A variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance, including clearing of vegetation within stream corridors, wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03(c), “Prohibited Activities” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. Conditions: 1. Subject to the requirements outline in the January 13, 2021 letter from Assistant City Engineer, Nate Wonsick. 2. There have not been any significant changes since the last Board of Zoning and Building Appeals decision made for this property on October 18, 2018. 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 variance. However; the testimony given from the Assistant City Engineer is that this pond is not included in any drainage system. 2. The variances are insubstantial as they are not part of the City of Hudson’s overall drainage plan. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variances. The pond is incidental to any drainage system and the primary drainage system is the stream behind the property. 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 requirements. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some other method other than granting the variance. The property does not appear to be buildable without the variance. 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner BZBA 2020-1117A variance request in order to permit construction of an attached garage with doors facing the street. The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement that doors of attached garages shall not face the street pursuant to Section 1205.07(d)(9)(D)(1), “Building Siting and Orientation - Private Garages” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Elizabeth Nicklas - Peninsula Architects, 1775 Main Street, Peninsula, Ohio 44264. The property owner is Mary Lohman Trustee, 30 Aurora Street, Hudson, OH, 44236 for the property at 30 Aurora Street in District 4 [Historic Residential Neighborhood - Historic District] City of Hudson, Ohio Page 11 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 Attachments: 2020-1117 BZBA Packet Ms Davey displayed the site plan, described the LDC section regarding front facing garages, the scope of the proposed work including a reorientation of the garage. Ms. Davey also reviewed the staff comments and considerations. Ms. Elizabeth Nicklas and Mr. Joseph Matava, Peninsula Architects, were sworn in by Chair Drew and stated they are authorized to speak on behalf of the owners. Mr. Matava described the proposed work as being more in character with the house as built in 1826. He also displayed photos of the proposed garage and stated other locations would be problematic and not be in character with the house or surrounding neighborhood. The Board and Mr. Matava discussed the purpose of the garage second floor, the desire for the garage to appear to be detached, that a condition to not allow attaching the garage second floor to the house will be approved by the owners. Mr. Matava noted that while the garage is being enlarged, the impervious surface area will be decreased because of the removal of existing structures. The Board and Mr. Matava discussed: Prohibiting attaching the second floor of the garage to the main house and the gate as pictured in the rendering. Mr. Hannan noted AHBR has reviewed the project and will work with the applicant regarding fencing and gates. Chair Drew referenced communication from Mr. Carl Kotheimer, 45 Division Street which is in the staff report. 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, Mr. Wagner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Minar, that the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals hereby grant: A variance from the requirement that doors of attached garages shall not face the street pursuant to Section 1205.07(d)(9)(D)(1), “Building Siting and Orientation - Private Garages” of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. With the following conditions; 1. The second floor of the garage will not connect to the second floor of the house. 2. City staff to inform the Architectural and Historic Board of Review of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals concerns that the potential gate crossing the front of the driveway would impact the historic character of the streetscape and home. The Board finds and concludes: 1. The property in question will not yield a reasonable return and there can not be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The existing garage that is attached to the house has front facing garage doors. 2. The variance is substantial as it represents 100% of the requirement. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered, and adjoining properties would not suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variances as the current dwelling has a front facing garage. 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 requirements. 6. The applicant's predicament feasibly cannot be resolved through some other method other than granting the variance. City of Hudson, Ohio Page 12 Board of Zoning & Building Appeals Meeting Minutes - Final January 21, 2021 7. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Mr. Dohner, Mr. Drew, Mrs. Keller, Mr. Minar and Mr. Wagner VIII. Other Business Ms. Davey said there will be a February BZBA meeting with one or two cases. IX. Adjournment Mr. Minar made a motion, seconded by Ms. Keller, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was approved unanimously. Seeing no further business, Chair Drew adjourned the meeting sometime well after 11 p.m. and slightly before midnight. Signatures ________________________________ 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 13