Public Hearing for Variance
Brenda Scott-Stormer,
Chair Andrea Kacinari called the meeting to order at
The zoning secretary distributed the draft minutes of the
The following items were received and distributed to the board members:
(1) Zoning
Inspector 2008 Zoning Permits report through
(2) Letter
dated
(3) MCDPS
Zoning Workshop Series Update schedule (next workshop is
Chair Kacinari opened the public hearing relative to the Application for Zoning Variance submitted by Brenda Scott-Stormer requesting a variance from Section 301.5 and 210 H. for property at 5715 Eastlake Road, Medina, Ohio (parcel #020-10D-52-113).
The zoning secretary read into the record the Certificate of Mailing indicating that the letter notifying the adjacent property owners of tonight’s hearing was mailed on 7/11/08.
The Chair ascertained that the Board members had the complete application and that it had been reviewed by each of them.
Those persons sworn in for purposes of this public hearing included: Brenda Scott-Stormer (applicant), Zoning Inspector Alliss Strogin and Fire Chief James Sheppard.
Applicant – Everything that I really had to say is all there in the application. We want to improve our property by replacing an old building, which would eliminate the possible mold hazard existing in older buildings. The building will not be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Our proposal is to build a 20’ wide x 24’ long pole building, which would replace an existing 11’5” x 15’5” building that has been on the property for over 30 years. The building is on one of our three adjoining lots.
Zoning Inspector – I have pictures of the property to look
at for a visual. There are a couple of
things I wanted to mention. This
technically is a single freestanding lot but zoning says that you need a
principal building in order to have an accessory building. The principal building is on the other
lots. You will need to consider that
these three lots are owned by the same person and are adjoining. Zoning also says that the accessory building
has to be 20’ away from the principal building.
You will need to consider these two items in addition to the items in
the application. I asked the applicant
to request the variance two different ways – one with frontage on
Applicant – All of the utilities except the telephone come
in off of the back of the property. The
telephone lines, the mail and the address are
Blank – They are actually repairing/taking down the building on that lot and that lot is grandfathered in for that building to be on that lot. You are allowed a certain amount of space for rebuilding so I don’t see it being a problem. They are trying to improve the lot and I feel sorry that they have to pay $400 to come here to improve their lot.
Zoning Inspector – I agree and that’s why I talked with the prosecutor and Lynda Bowers about seeing if there was some legal alternative that could be worked out so people with these little lots wouldn’t have to come in. However, the way zoning is now there is no other option. That’s why I mentioned previously that I think we need to get together and work out some type of blanket variance that would be given by this Board that would cover lots in a very specific area that are very small. Such lots are legal lots of record; they are grandfathered and are zoned Rural Residential.
Blank – But we can’t change the zoning and before we would do anything about a blanket variance it’s got to be in writing from the prosecutor.
Calvo – How many variances have we had this year so far in this area?
Zoning Inspector – This is the first one that has actually come to the Board. There are several out there that are trying to make up their minds whether they want to go through the hassle of it.
Kacinari – Do they have the option of making it all one large parcel?
Zoning Inspector - Yes, I discussed that with them. Making it all one parcel eliminates the problem of having the accessory building on the same lot as the principal building and it might alleviate the 20’ distance but there is still a depth problem.
Fire Chief – My concerns are always the closeness and stuff. It looks like it’s going to be 9’ on the east side and I like my number to be 15’ even though we have some that are smaller. It affects on what might be built on the next lot if they don’t own that one and someone else builds something close so how close the building can go is an issue.
Applicant – The old building is approximately 12’ x 16’ and we’re talking about a proposed building of 20’ x 24’ (adding 8’ to the back and 8’ to the side). We’re getting it closer to the center of our lot.
Riffle – Will it be just a regular height building like a garage or what? It’s not going to be obnoxiously high is it?
Applicant – It will be just a pole barn for storage because we’ve got stuff outside. It will be no higher than 16’
Parker – The only thing I would say is on the condition that the building is made that size, nothing bigger.
Zoning Inspector – The variance that you give should specific how much of a variance foot wise you are giving and that would prohibit them from going larger.
Chair – Any other questions? What do we want to consider as the front? There is no road on Overlook now.
Zoning Inspector – There is a road but it’s not paved and it just doesn’t go as far back as their house. If you look it up on the Auditor’s site you’ll see that it’s got the matrix.
Parker – As a point of interest, does that belong to the township – that Overlook road property if it were extended?
Applicant – It’s never been vacated. Our water line, our sewer line, our gas line, and our electric line – all come off through there.
Chair – All the houses face
Zoning Inspector – I had asked the applicant if she had anything with any information on deed restrictions or anything like that and she gave me a document copy dated 1974 where they bought it, subject to restrictions that date back to 1925, which apparently is when this subdivision was laid out. It shows all sublots on Overlook.
Chair – Well, if we say that
Zoning Inspector – Usually where the address is determines where the roads front – that’s the norm but this old document says all sublots on Overlook - but if you look at those pictures Overlook only goes so far. How far can you get down Overlook?
Applicant – Not very far - we mow that area.
The Board discussed the pros and cons of whether to use
Overlook or
Applicant – If you decide that
(The Board briefly discussed this issue.)
Chair – I think for the purpose of the variance we need the address on Overlook because that’s how it is legally.
The Board discussed this and determined that the legal
frontage was on
A motion was made by Dave Parker to approve the zoning variance as follows:
A variance from Section 301.5 A. of sixty feet (60’) from the center of Overlook Road; a variance from Section 301.5 B. of nine feet (9’) from the eastern boundary line and a variance of one foot (1’) from the western boundary line; and a variance from Section 210 H. to allow the building of an accessory building on a lot without a residence. The granting of this variance is also conditioned upon the replacement building being no larger than the applicant indicated on record, i.e. 20’ x 24’ with a height not to exceed 16’.
Jack Blank seconded the motion.
Vote: Dave Parker - yes
Mark Riffle - yes
Jack Blank - yes
Andrea Kacinari - yes
Jack
The motion passed with the variance being granted.
Chair Kacinari closed the public hearing.
The applicant was advised that under the law the public has thirty days in which to appeal the decision. At such time as the decision form has been prepared and signed, a copy will be provided to the applicant. The applicant can then apply for a building permit from the zoning inspector.
Relative to the public hearing scheduled for 7/23/08, the zoning secretary advised that she had submitted a memo on 7/11/08 (along with all plan materials relative to the Medina Country Club – North PUD Subdivision) to the Lafayette Township Trustees and the Zoning Commission Chair (as set forth in Section 604 B. 1) requesting their review and comments be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals prior to the decision of the BZA and further advising that the public hearing was scheduled for July 23, 2008.
Dave Parker suggested that a letter be sent to the Zoning Commission addressing the issue of these little lots and people having to pay $400 for a variance. The Zoning Inspector indicated that she had already made the Zoning Commission aware of the problem and, again, Prosecutor Thorne said the easiest way would be to have a blanket variance for a very specific area. It would have to be written to meet all the legal requirements.
Relative to the earlier discussion about the possibility of
a blanket variance for the small lots in the
There was no new business.
The Board agreed that the meeting to sign minutes would be
scheduled for
The public hearing on the Application for Conditional Zoning
Certificate/Site Plan for Medina County Club – North PUD Subdivision is
scheduled for
Upon motion by Jack Blank, seconded by Mark Riffle, it was
unanimously approved that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at
Marlene L. Oiler, Certified PP, PLS
(Note: Minutes
approved