Public Hearing for Variance
Natalie L. Zazik,
Chair Andrea Kacinari called the meeting to order at
Upon motion by Mark Riffle, duly seconded by Dave Parker,
the
The following items were received and distributed to the board members:
(1) Zoning
Inspector 2008 Zoning Permits report through
(2)
Chair Kacinari opened the public hearing relative to the Application for Zoning Variance submitted by Natalie L. Zazik requesting a variance from Sections 301.4 and 208 E. for property at 5855 Heather Hedge Drive, Chippewa Lake, Ohio (parcel #020-10D-38-108).
The zoning secretary read into the record the Certificate of Mailing indicating that the letter notifying the adjacent property owners of tonights hearing was mailed on 9/11/08.
The Chair ascertained that the Board members had the complete application and that it had been reviewed by each of them. All Board members indicated they did a site inspection of the property.
Those persons sworn in for purposes of this public hearing included: Natalie L. Zazik (applicant), Michael E. Beckwith (owner/applicant) and Zoning Inspector Alliss Strogin.
Applicant We want to improve the property by building a 24 x 24 garage and without the granting of the requested variance we are unable to build anything on our lot. We will beautify our property by building a garage to house our vehicles and other miscellaneous items. The building will not block any views of our neighbors or disturb them in any way.
Parker Mr. Chester and I were down there and our biggest concern using your scale of 1/16 to 1, you are 4 off your rear steps. It seems it should be further away. Personally I would think it should be 10.
Applicant Okay.
Applicant We dont plan to have an attached garage.
Kacinari If you dont use the 4 do you have something else in mind?
Applicant The 4 was just a plan. We just wanted it to be in close proximity to our vehicles in the wintertime.
Zoning Inspector Strogin If they wanted to enclose the two buildings that would be like a remodeling permit, just a $50 fee. It wouldnt be a variance because the two buildings would already be there.
Calvo If it is not enclosed but just a roof, do they still have to get a remodeling permit?
Zoning Inspector Strogin Im afraid so. The thing I would be more concerned about though is the distance they are asking for is probably geared to the 4 so if they are looking for a rear yard setback variance, then we would want to modify that if there is not enough room. As long as there is room then they could put it as close or further down.
Parker There is plenty of room
Kacinari The property next to you, who owns that is that yours?
Applicant We dont know the owners but we spoke to the renters and they are okay with our plan.
Kacinari Is the plan for the garage to match the house?
Applicant Yes, it will match.
Parker Youve done a great job with the house.
Riffle Do any of the neighbors have any gripes about it?
Applicant No, we have talked with the neighbors and no one has a problem with it.
The Board reviewed the Duncan Factors:
- Will the property yield a reasonable return or can there be a beneficial use of the property without the variance? The Board determined that a garage would be a beneficial use to the property and the property coincides with the surrounding property.
- Is the variance substantial? The Board determined that it is substantial (the lots in this area are small).
- Will the essential character of the neighborhood be substantially altered or adjoining property suffer a substantial detriment if the variance is granted? The Board determined that the building of a garage would enhance the area.
- Will the variance adversely affect the delivery of governmental services? The Board determined services would not be affected (also, its a corner lot).
- Did the property owner purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions? The applicants replied in the affirmative.
- Can the problem be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance? The Board determined that it could not because of the small size of the lots in this area.
- Does the variance preserve the spirit and intent of the zoning and will justice be done by granting the variance? The Board determined in the affirmative.
The Board was in agreement that the pros outweigh the cons of granting the variance.
Kacinari When you were out there measuring, were you measuring from the back of the shed and, if so, do you want to make a change on that 4?
Parker Yes, thats what we measured and I think the 4 should be changed.
The Board discussed the location of the garage and whether 4 was adequate or if 10 would be more appropriate. It was determined that 10 should be used. The applicants indicated they had no problem with the change from 4 to 10.
Kacinari That way if they want to make it a breezeway next to the garage they can.
Zoning Inspector Strogin There is no variance involved with changing the 4 to 10. Theres not anything in the zoning code that says they have to be more than 4 apart but because it is a variance your board can put that caveat on if you desire.
The Board reviewed the application and attached architectural site plan, building design, county engineer map and parcel air photomap. There was no further questions or comments.
A motion was made by Dave Parker to accept the variance as submitted per
Attachment A with the condition that the garage be a minimum of ten feet (10)
away from the deck.
Jack Chester seconded the motion.
Vote: Dave Parker - yes
Mark Riffle - yes
Paul Calvo (alternate) - yes
Andrea Kacinari - yes
Jack Chester (alternate) yes
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.
There was a question relative to the status of the pending lawsuit, Eck v. Bady et al. The zoning secretary advised that the Medina County Court of Common Pleas had scheduled a hearing for September 25, 2008.
There was discussion relative to the possibility of a blanket variance for the small lots in the Chippewa Lake area or the possibility of rezoning a certain area. The status of those legal nonconforming lots and the variances required in order for property owners to build a shed or garage, etc. on those properties was reviewed. The Board requested that the zoning secretary write a memo to Assistant Prosecutor Thorne inviting him to attend the October 2, 2008, meeting and/or provide his input relative to this issue. It was suggested that the Medina County Department of Planning Services could also be contacted to see if other townships had language in their zoning codes of a similar nature.
The Boards next regular quarterly meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Lafayette Township Hall.
Upon motion by Mark Riffle, seconded by Paul Calvo, it was unanimous that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
Marlene L. Oiler, Certified PP, PLS
Lafayette Township Board of Zoning Appeals Secretary
(Note: Minutes approved on 10/2/08.)