Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF TALLMADGE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes of Meeting Held April 9 , 2013 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Date Time Place Members Present: Kevin Heilmeier, Donald Cooper and Richard Schunk Members Absent: Melanie Bushey, Richean Kuzior Chaired by: Kevin Heilmeier Secretary: Velma Williams  Regular meeting  Special Meeting PRESENT: John Scavelli, Assistant Law Director Roger Lyons, Code Enforcement Official ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED Item #1 Case No. 919 Michael Berger – Applicant/Owner 726 Dunbar Road Variance requested from Subsection 1154.09; Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet required. Request variance to 5 feet. For review and approval. Item #2 Case No. 920 Scott J. Peterson – Applicant/Owner 200 W. Garwood Drive Variance requested from subsections 1191.12 & 1155.07(a) Minimum front yard setback of 50 feet required from both streets for corner lots. Requesting 40 feet from un-named stub reservation street and 44 feet from W. Garwood Drive For review and approval. The April 9, 2013 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Kevin Heilmeier. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll called. All members were present with the exception of Melanie Bushey and Richean Kuzior. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 2. Mr. Heilmeier: I’ll make a motion to excuse Mrs. Kuzior and Mrs. Bushey. Mr. Schunk: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0). Mr. Heilmeier: Okay, next is the approval of the January 8, 2013 minutes of the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Schunk: So moved. Mr. Cooper: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0). Mr. Heilmeier: Are there any additions to the agenda tonight? Mr. Lyons: No, sir. Mr. Heilmeier: Is there any correspondence or communications? Mr. Lyons: I don’t believe so. Mr. Heilmeier: It is now 7:01. I will open the Public Hearing for Item #1: Item #1 Case No. 919 Michael Berger – Applicant/Owner 726 Dunbar Road Variance requested from Subsection 1154.09; Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet required. Request variance to 5 feet. For review and approval. Mr. Heilmeier: Is the applicant here? Would you come up and state your name and address and I’ll swear you in. Mr. Berger: My name if Michael Berger, 726 Dunbar. Mr. Michael Berger was sworn in. Mr. Heilmeier: Correct me if I’m wrong. This is not his actual address. Do we need to get his actual address on record? Mr. Berger: On the application, my mailing address is on that. Mr. Heilmeier: I’m just asking the administration if we need that on the record too? Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 3. Mr. Scavelli: Where do you live now, sir? Mr. Berger: My home address is 3976 Eleanor Street, Mogadore. Mr. Scavelli: So these are just properties that you own? Mr. Berger: This one I just purchased, yes. Mr. Scavelli: We probably want to put your home address there. Mr. Berger: Okay. Mr. Heilmeier: So we’re okay? Mr. Scavelli: Yes, we should be okay. Mr. Heilmeier: Okay, great. Just a little bit of clarification. Tonight with only three of us here, we will make a motion in the affirmative and we have to have all three board members agree or the motion will be defeated or will not be passed. At any time, if you want to extend to next month, if you feel more comfortable, you can ask for a postponement to next month. If you’re comfortable with a vote tonight, then we can go forward. Mr. Berger: I think we’re fine. Mr. Heilmeier: Okay? Mr. Berger: Sure. Mr. Heilmeier: Go ahead and state why you’re requesting a variance at 726 Dunbar. Mr. Berger: We’re proposing to add a two-car garage on the side of the existing three bedroom home. There is no garage at all on the property. A 24’ garage will actually bring it within 6’ of the property line so we’re requesting a variance to go to 5’ which would take into account a 1’ overhang on the property. Obviously it will enhance the value of the property and that’s what we’re looking to do. Mr. Heilmeier: Any questions from the Board? Mr. Schunk: I assume that your neighbor’s are happy with this? They’re not here. Mr. Berger: Yes, I spoke to both neighbors. Actually they’re Robert and Rob on each side and they were real happy that somebody got the house and is fixing it up and cleaning it up and I think they were definitely in favor of it. Mr. Schunk: Mr. Berger, is there an access to your property from the rear? Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 4. Mr. Berger: Well the back of that property, no. It abuts the church’s property on the angle all the way in the back. On the left side as you are facing the home there’s about 15’ or 17’, something like that over there. I can’t remember. I think it’s about 15 so if you did have to get back behind the property, that’s sufficient space to get back there. Plus it’s an open, like half of a lot over to the next property on the west side. Mr. Schunk: This would be about a two-car garage? Mr. Berger: Be a two-car garage that would have a 16’ garage door on it. Mr. Heilmeier: I talked to you yesterday when I was out there. Mr. Berger: Yes. Mr. Heilmeier: Your plans are to cut down the trees in the front there. Mr. Berger: Yes, there are two trees that are kind of close to the property line there where the driveways are next to each other. Those will be removed and stuff. They’re actually kind of unsightly anyways. Mr. Heilmeier: I will at least ask: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this variance? Anybody would like to speak against this variance? I’ll close the Public Hearing at this time (7:07 p.m.). Mr. Schunk: I’ll move the requested variance be approved. My reasoning is that adding a garage to one side of that property certainly makes the property more desirable and since there is no garage there now, it kind of removes the possibility of anybody moving in to that property and parking vehicles in the back part of the property. There’s always a tendency for people to stick their lawn mowers and their mobile home and their boat and everything else. It sort of blocks that off with the driveway. I think it’s an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Heilmeier: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0). Mr. Heilmeier: Your variance was approved. Mr. Berger: Thank you. Mr. Heilmeier: Thank you. It is now 7:07 p.m. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 5. Item #2 Case No. 920 Scott J. Peterson – Applicant/Owner 200 W. Garwood Drive Variance requested from subsections 1191.12 & 1155.07(a) Minimum front yard setback of 50 feet required from both streets for corner lots. Requesting 40 feet from un-named stub reservation street and 44 feet from W. Garwood Drive For review and approval. Mr. Scott Peterson was sworn in. Mr. Heilmeier: State your name and address please. Mr. Peterson: Scott J. Peterson. I am the owner of 200 West Garwood, Tallmadge, Ohio. Mr. Heilmeier: At this time we’ll open the public hearing (7:09 p.m.) and you can tell us why you’d like the variance please. Mr. Peterson: All right. My wife and I have been in the process of remodeling and updating our home. Last year, I brought a contractor in to look at redoing my driveway. The driveway is about 21 years old and its disintegrating. He made a recommendation that I could add a third car of parking by swooping out to the side with my driveway. A lot of my neighbors do that. After thinking about it for a while, I thought I would expand the garage. To give you a little background, I am the owner of three vehicles and one of them is a classic Camero and I keep that across the street at my mother-in-law’s house right now. I think the days are limited where I can continue to do that. I thought that expanding the garage would be better than parking a vehicle outside. It would be safer and would enhance the value of the house and allow us to continue to update and remodel. We enjoy the neighborhood and we enjoy the city. To expand the garage, I’m adjacent to an undesignated or un-named street reserve. Some people here call it a stub street. Officially that makes it a corner lot although it’s not used for any traffic. It dead ends into the Bierce property. My house is set back from the two closest points on the garage to the stub street, 50’ right now and then to West Garwood 50’. If I expand the garage forward 10’ with all the lines of the home, I will be 40’ from the unnamed reservation stub street and 48.4 from West Garwood. That’s the purpose of my plan and my being here. Mr. Schunk: Question, Roger? I think Roger could probably answer this better than anybody. The stub street that goes south to the Bierce property, is that part of any road plan for the city? Mr. Lyons: It is not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a street that’s to be extended. I’m not sure how far but there is a pretty large drainage swale that runs on the Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 6. northern part of the Bierce property which is going to make that a little more difficult to develop the northern part of that property. I did happen to talk to Tom or Dave Bierce, they are the owners of the property, about this particular variance and they indicated that they didn’t have any problem with the variance. Mr. Schunk: If that stub street were ever to be vacated, is there enough distance to create a city lot where the stub street now exists? Mr. Lyons: Its only 60’ wide. If it was vacated, then it typically goes half to each owner, if they’re all part of the same development. This one may only go to the east. Mr. Scavelli: The statute for vacation, it would go part to each abutting land owner essentially equally. So if it we’re ever vacated, each abutting land owner up there, its only two, so it would probably go 50% to each side. Mr. Schunk: So there’s no possibility that this could ever be a buildable lot in its own right. Mr. Lyons: I would think not. Not without getting a variance for a lot width. Mr. Schunk: If that ever happens, then I take it Mr. Landowner would have to locate his driveway out onto Garwood. Is that right? Mr. Lyons: Yes. The applicant’s address 200 West Garwood is part of the Lusher Meadows Subdivision. The stub street itself is part of an older allotment, Akron Homes Allotment. The first property to the east is closer to this right of way than the applicant’s asking for. Mr. Schunk: That Akron Homes Allotment you mentioned, is that still a platted allotment on the Bierce property? Mr. Lyons: Well it’s not part of the Bierce property. It’s the development of Garwood up to the applicant’s property. Mr. Schunk: There’s no corresponding stub street or imaginary street on the Bierce property? Mr. Lyons: No. Mr. Heilmeier: I’ll ask if anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this variance? Anybody in the audience like to speak in opposition of this variance? At this time we’ll close the Public Hearing (7:15 p.m.). I know I was out yesterday. Unfortunately you weren’t home but I looked around. If you didn’t have that stub street there you’d only need one variance. There will be two variances for this one tonight. Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 7. Mr. Peterson: If the city would ever like to vacate that street, I’d be happy to acquire it and retro fit it and do everything else that would be necessary to make that part of the property. Mr. Lyons: Mr. Heilmeier? Mr. Heilmeier: Yes? Mr. Lyons: The property to the east, being part of the old Akron Homes Allotment, their front yard setback wasn’t 50’. It was actually 30’ so that home is set at about 30’ off the right of way instead of the current 50’ setback. Mr. Schunk: That would be the reason that West Garwood kind of does a little dog leg to the north to gain that additional 50’. Mr. Lyons: Yes. And also I think the lot sizes are larger now than they were back when that was platted. Mr. Heilmeier: I’ll entertain a motion. Mr. Schunk: Well I will move to approve the variance requested from Subsection 1191.12 and 1155.07, the first one being a front yard setback of 50’ required from both streets on corner lots. Recommend approval of variance to 40’ from the unnamed stub street. Mr. Cooper: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0). Mr. Schunk: Then second I would recommend the variance of the requirement of 50’ from West Garwood be reduced to 44’ as requested in his request for variance. Mr. Heilmeier: seconded the motion. Roll called. All members present voted in favor (3-0). Mr. Heilmeier: Your variance was granted sir. Mr. Peterson: Thank you. Mr. Heilmeier: Thank you. It is 7:19 p.m. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cooper: so moved. Mr. Lyons: Mr. Heilmeier? I noticed on the agenda, it had election of officers. Had that already been done? Board of Zoning Appeals – April 9, 2013 8. Mr. Heilmeier: Yes, it was done in January. Mr. Lyons: Okay, thank you. Mr. Schunk: seconded the motion to adjourn. All members present voted in favor (3-0). Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Velma J. Williams, Secretary Kevin Heilmeier, Chairperson