Note: These minutes were compiled by extracting certain facts the essence of testimony from an audiotape made of this
meeting. Complete detail and verbatim statements can be heard and transcribed from the tape. The tape is available in the
office of the Department of Planning and Zoning for a nominal fee.
STREETSBORO
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Hearing
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
7:00 pm
Call to Order – Mr. Bross called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call- Matthew Bross, Anthony Madden, Curt Newill, Doug Liebler, Scott McDole
and Ron Stenglein.
Absent- Dave Dabrowski
Motion to excuse Dave Dabrowski: Mr. Bross, Seconded Mr. Madden. Voice vote,
motion carried.
Also present: John Cieszkowski, Planning and Zoning Director; Matthew Vazzana,
Assistant Law Director and Andrea Parma, Building Clerk.
Disposition of Minutes: Motion to approve September 15, 2015, January 19, 2016,
and February 16, 2016 meeting minutes.
Motion to approve September 15, 2015
Mr. Madden, Seconded Mr. Bross. Voice vote, motion carried.
Motion to approve January 19, 2016 organizational meeting
Mr. Stenglein, seconded Mr. Madden. Voice vote, motion carried.
Motion to approve January 19, 2016
Mr. Liebler, seconded Mr. McDole. Voice vote, motion carried.
Motion to approve February 16, 2016
Mr. Madden, seconded by Mr. Lebler. Voice vote, motion carried.
Mr. Bross explained how the meeting would proceed.
Old Business: None
New Business:
9275 Dorothy Drive - Lloyd
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 1
Request a variance from Section 1151.23(a) to allow a 6 ft fence with no area of
the vertical surface open to light and air (“stockade”). Code requires 25% of the
area of the vertical surface to be open to light and air. Variance is for 25%.
Mr. Stenglein stated that he lived on Dorothy drive and asked if he needed to
excuse himself from the voting.
Mr. Vazzana said that it was not necessary to recuse himself from the vote.
Susan Lloyd 9275 Dorothy Drive (applicant)-Stated that she was trying to install a
solid wood fence compared to the open fence. The reason stated was in the
letter and she felt there was nothing more to add to her reasoning, other than
what was written in her letter.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that he felt this request was pretty straight forward, and
that he would be happy to answer any questions that the board may have.
Mr. Bross asked for any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this
request.
Joshua Thornberry 9285 Dorothy Drive-asked if the applicant was planning on
using the existing poles that are already currently erect on the property, because
the stockade fence where the current posts are and what she is requesting is a
foot and a half onto her property. Mr. Thornsberry stated that he planned on
putting a fence up himself on his property, but wasn’t sure if the gap between the
two fences would cause brush to grow and will be unable to be maintained. Mr.
Thornsberry also stated that if she plans on using the existing posts, he would
like permission to tie into the fence from his property, seeing that he was wanting
to put a fence up as well.
Mr. Cieszkowski asked for clarification to better understand, the existing fence
posts that are there are on Mr. Thornsberry’ property, and that Mr. Thornsberry
would like to tie in to that fence. Mr. Cieszkowski stated that he was unsure of the
applicant’s desires in relation to the existing fence post, but was unsure if the
board, or any board in the city could give him the approval to tie into her fence.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that there is no fence setback requirement but that staff
recommends that space be left between a fence and a property line so that the
fence can be maintained without entering the adjacent property owner’s property.
Mr. Cieszkowski asked the applicant to speak based on her desires.
Mr. Thornsberry stated that with the previous owners, there was a fence on the
property, and his fence was tied into their fence on their property. But when the
homeowners left the property, the fence was taken down. Stated the
maintenance concerns, if and when he puts up a fence there will not be enough
space in between the two fences to maintain the property.
Ms. Lloyd stated that she planned on using the existing posts, and that there
were panels that were left for her when she purchased the property that are
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 2
currently behind her shed. Stated that she was unsure if she would be using all
of the existing posts, but she will be using some. She stated that she does not
grant anyone permission to tie into her property. She does not want Mr.
Thornsberry on her property. Stated that she wasn’t allowed to state a whole lot
in detail but she does have an attorney representing her at this point, stated that
she explained some of it in the letter that she wrote, but can’t get into much more
detail than she has. She does not want anyone crossing over onto her property.
Ms. Lloyd said that without being granted this variance she cannot fully enjoy her
property because of the issues that she is currently experiencing.
Mr. Newill stated that he looked at the property earlier that day (April 19). Said
that there seemed to be some type of a brown wooden fence between the
properties now, asked who’s fence it was currently, and asked if that fence had
anything to do with the variance that she is requesting.
Ms. Lloyd stated that part of the fence is on her property and part of the fence is
on 9285 Dorothy.
Mr. Newill then asked if the idea is to make an extension of the existing fence
that he saw earlier in the day, and asked Ms. Lloyd about the stakes that he saw
on the property currently, and she stated that those were from the surveyors
marking the property line.
Mr. Newill asked if the fence will be along the whole length of her property line.
Ms. Lloyd stated that it would, but she would leave the part behind the shed
unfenced, because it was a storm and drainage easement. Ms. Lloyd stated that
it would run the entire back of the property and to the sides of the house.
Ms. Lloyd approached the board to show on her drawings where she would be
putting the fence.
Mr. Newill asked Ms. Lloyd if the variance was to enclose her yard. She
confirmed.
Mr. Bross asked if it was clear to everyone what she was conveying.
Mr. Newill asked if her major concern was predominately smoke coming through
her fence.
Ms. Lloyd stated that she couldn’t get too much into it but she does have an
attorney representing her, there are criminal actions and civil actions that are
being directed towards her from someone and she does have a lawyer. She
claimed that she would feel much more comfortable having a solid wood fence so
she couldn’t be watched.
Mr. Madden clarified a few points that the board had already gone over just to
make sure that he was on the same page.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 3
Mr. Madden asked if since she was going to be utilizing the panels that are
behind the shed, and was she able to match them up with panels that she
intends on purchasing.
Ms. Lloyd stated that Lowe’s has the same panels available. She had already
purchased, but had to return everything because of the City ordinance in place.
Mr. Liebler asked if the fence that is currently in existence, if it was erected when
she brought the property.
Ms. Lloyd stated that there are a few still left up, but for the most part the majority
was taken down. Her house was a foreclosure so she thinks that the previous
owners just took the panels with them, but the posts were too hard to get out of
the ground because they are put in with concrete.
Mr. Liebler asked if there was a previous fence permit on file.
Ms. Lloyd stated that there was a permit for this address from 2002, and in 2010
they fenced in more of the area.
Mr. Thornsberry approached the podium and stated that he was a witness to the
fence that was there originally. In 2014, at 9275 the fence was up, and it was a
shadowbox, and the people that owned the home, were the people that took it
down upon foreclosure. The fence that remains is an old fence that had been
taken down prior.
Ms. Lloyd stated that there are other houses in the area with solid wood fences.
Stated that there were no permits that could be found going back to 1999.
Mr. Liebler asked if permission was needed from the neighbors for Ms. Lloyd to
be able to put this type of fence up.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that she does not need permission from the neighbors,
as all of the neighbors were notified of the hearing.
Mr. Liebler asked Ms. Lloyd why she felt a shadow box fence would not give her
the privacy that she needs.
Ms. Lloyd stated that she is having issues with the neighbor next door, Joshua
Thornsberry. Stated that there was a case that had been filed against him. She
is not comfortable being in her back yard with a fence that he can see through.
Felt that the cigarette smoke would be better blocked if the fence did not have
holes.
Mr. Liebler asked if she had a doctor or physician recommend this type of fence
that would be an improvement.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 4
Ms. Lloyd stated that she had papers in her car that stated she had asthma from
cigarette smoke from previously living in apartments that allowed cigarette
smoke.
Mr. McDole had nothing to add.
Mr. Stenglein had nothing to add.
Mr. Bross asked Mr. Vazzana if there is a neighbor dispute, how much would
they be required or able to divulge where this could affect an application.
Mr. Vazzana stated that the only way to get the applicant to tell the truth is their
right, and they can choose to say what they want to say. They testify what they
want to tell you. Stated he cannot force them to say anything that they do not
want to say.
Mr. Bross questioned how much Ms. Lloyd would be able to divulge since they
were already involved in a case where she is being represented by a lawyer.
Mr. Vazzana stated that they are unable to judge something that they are not
given the full details of.
Ms. Lloyd stated that she was really in need of the variance being granted
And if the board didn’t feel she is being forthright with the information she was
willing to divulge whatever she needed to have her variance granted.
Mr. Bross clarified he was aware of how much the board could ask of her.
Mr. Liebler asked since she stated that this may help with neighbor relations, he
asked if she knew if any of her neighbors are opposed to this style of fence.
Mr. Liebler asked if Joshua Thornsberry was opposed to this type of fence.
Mr. Thornsberry stated that he was not aware of the hearing until the day before,
he did not receive the certified letter in the mail until the day before. Stated he
does not have a problem with the type of fence, his personal plans were to put up
a standard board on board shadow box. He asked, If he decided to go with the
continuation with the fence, would he have to get a variance as well?
Mr. Newill stated he doesn’t feel that neighborhood disagreements is sufficient
for practical difficulty, for a variance. He wanted to make sure that everyone was
on the same page for the justification of practical difficulty.
Mr. Madden:
I hereby move on this 19th day of April 2016, the Streetsboro Board of
Zoning and Building Appeals grant a variance to 9275 Dorothy Drive from
Section 1151.23a to allow a 6 ft fence with no area of the vertical surface
open to light and air or stockade fence. Code requires 25% of the area of
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 5
the vertical surface to be open to light and air this variance is for 25% per
application submitted March 15, 2016 and subject to all planning and
zoning ordinances and site plan review of the City of Streetsboro where
applicable.
Mr. McDole seconded.
Roll Call: Yes- 6 No-0. Motion passed, variance approved.
Mr. Newill said yes, but only on the medical issue side of it.
Ms. Lloyd then asked when she could begin building her fence, since she had
already submitted an application and paid for the permit.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that she just needed to stop in and pick up the permit to
move forward.
Ms. Lloyd thanked everyone for approving her request.
1690 Manor Drive – McCourt
Request a variance from Section 1151.23(a) to allow a 6 ft fence in the required
front yard. Code allows a 2.5 ft fence in the required front yard. Variance is for
3.5 ft.
Robert Mccourt 1690 Manor drive (applicant) sworn in.
Mr. McCourt stated that he was requesting to fence in his front yard, which he
refers to as his backyard. He has three small children and 2 dogs and is simply
erecting the fence for safety reasons. Mr. McCourt presented pictures on why,
tapping into his neighbors existing fence was not an option due to pre-existing
trees.
Mr. Bross stated that the pictures were clear and showed the tree line and
where the fence was proposed to be. He explained that since Mr. McCourt has
technically two front yards and asked for clarification from Mr. Cieszkowski.
Mr. Cieszkowski explained that a corner lot has, by definition, two front yards
and the front yards are the yards adjacent to rights of way.
Mr. McCourt stated he was hoping to get the variance for a shadow box fence.
Neighbors are not concerned and none of them object. He thought that the front
of the house could be fenced in without any issue, didn’t realize that the city
considered it to be two front yards.
Mr. Bross brought to the attention of the board “in order to limit potential impact
on adjacent properties and remain consistent, relative to the fence distance from
the Root Drive right of way is a side yard. Staff recommends that if the
proposed variance is granted any fence that is erected is to be required to locate
on the same plane relative to the Root Drive right of way as the existing fence
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 6
on 1691 State Route 303, which is the property behind McCourt, the condition is
that his fence has to line up behind the trees along and be aligned with the
fence on the property behind him. That will be the condition of granting the
variance that you have to have by the tree and the line.
Mr. McCourt clarified that he meant that he had to go in front of the trees, which
will cut his yard down considerably.
Mr. Bross stated that he believed that to be the condition.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that it’s difficult to tell by the pictures that are provided
and to look at the google earth street view which is dated, but provided a
different view to be able to tell what is a condition to the variance.
Mr. McCourt stated that according to the drawing, he only wants to come out 6
feet so that they can clear the trees and still maintain enough of the yard to not
cut out so much of his yard. He still would like the ability to utilize trees and
utilize the yard to the maximum ability.
Mr. Bross stated that he understood, but was just clarifying.
Mr. Cieszkowski asked if the board saw the drawing that was part of the
application packet, and was aware of what the request entailed.
Mr. Newill stated that he visited the property earlier in the day and didn’t realize
that the installation of the fence would cut off parts of the yard at 1690 Manor
drive.
Mr. Newill asked if there was a setback requirement from the road for the fence.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that there wasn’t, but he could not infringe on the right of
way, but wasn’t able to tell without having a survey done where the right of way
starts and stops. As an amendment, if there is a conflict with the fence and the
tree line that the applicant be required to be as close to the tree line as they
possibly could be. If a fence that is in line with the adjacent neighbors is not
possible due to the presence of the tree , be as close to those trees as possible,
so as not to go any closer to Root Drive as you absolutely have to.
Mr. Madden asked if the drainage would be public works, and if any work
needed to be done by the city, if the fence would have to come down.
Mr. Cieszkowski recommended that they hug the tree line as best as he can
with the fence in case work has to be done.
Mr. Bross wanted to make it clear that since there is no set back, per se that
they needed to make it clear that there is really no way to state that the
applicant could put the fence 2 ft from the roadway.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 7
Mr. Cieszkowski stated again, that there was not a set back on the property line
for a fence. In this case the property line on two sides is the right of way line.
Root Drive and Manor. Mr. Cieszkowski is unsure of exactly where the line is
since a survey was not done. He is not condoning a fence being put up in the
right of way.
Mr. Madden stated that the variance is provided that the fence does not come
into interference with the public works, that the cost is the responsibility of the
resident, if the fence impedes work or equipment.
Mr. McCourt stated that he was aware of the responsibility which is the reason
for the variance of 6ft instead of 12 or 15 ft. because they are aware of the
responsibilities, and make sure that there was enough room for public works to
provide maintenance. He stated that its one of the main reasons of the variance
requested.
Mr. Stenglein asked if the right of way for that road is the responsibility of the
City, and if it was their responsibility to maintain. Mr. Stenglein stated that in
past practices in other cities, that he knows that other communities do not even
allow brick mailboxes, because if someone were to go off of the road and hit it
and were injured, the state would be sued because they allowed something in
the right of way. Mr. Stenglein asked where that puts the City in reference to
liability.
Mr. Vazzana stated that Mr. Stenglein’s question and concern was a good
question, however the issue this evening is not necessarily questioning where
it’s going, and where the liability lies causing something to happen is the end
result.
Mr. Bross stated that the variance is strictly for height in this matter.
Mr. Vazzana stated that the content of this meeting does not get into the liability
issue, the discussion for this evening is just based on the height of the fence.
Mr. Stenglein then asked if the variance should be to allow a fence to be put in
the right of way.
Mr. Cieszkowski interjected regarding location, comparing the pictures of the
property. He stated that he does not advocate for a fence to be placed 6 ft
closer to the Root Drive than the neighbors or adjacent property’s fence,
because it appears that that would be well within the right of way. It looked like
that applicants drawing is not to scale, but the only way to determine would be
with a survey.
Mr. Vazzana stated that, given the boards concerns, and Mr. Cieszkowski’s
concerns, without the paperwork that allows him to confirm, it’s hard to tell
exactly where it is in location to the right of way. Stated that a variance couldn’t
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 8
be passed with conditions that would change law, which is where it sounds the
conversation is moving to.
Mr. McCourt stated that he has driven around Streetsboro a number of times
and he has seen fences, and bushes within feet of the road, how does that differ
from what he was trying to do?
Mr. Vazzana stated that was what he was getting at, but the variance this
evening is regarding the height of the fence. Residents may have erected the
fence previous to ordinances or without any penalty or them getting cited. The
fences could have been erected before any regulations, as we now know them,
were put into place. Many communities have different stages of development
because of when the regulations were put into place.
Mr. Newill interjected and agreed with Matt in the fact that the only thing asking
to be reviewed is the height of the fence.
.
Mr. McCourt stated that it was not drawn fully to scale, but could provide if
needed.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that the drawing wasn’t the best deciding factor as to if
the fence was in the right of way or not. Is not advocating for a fence to be
located in the right of way, feels a survey may need to be done in order to verify
that before a fence is erected, but the height of the fence is what is before the
board today. Location should be verified outside of the right of way before a
zoning certificate is issued.
Mr. Bross clarified that the only issue being voted on tonight was the height of
the fence.
Brenda Smith, 2310 OakLeaf Court- sworn in. Owns property next to the
applicants address, but does not reside there. Stated that she has lived on
Manor drive in the past and knows a lot of neighbors. All of the neighbors have
stated that this is a very nice couple, with a beautiful family, and she feels that
the variance should be granted.
Mr. Newill- stated the kids need to get home to bed, but is ok with the variance.
Mr. Madden- no questions.
Mr. Liebler- no questions.
Mr. McDole- no questions
Mr. Stenglein- no questions
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 9
Mr. Bross-no questions
Mr. Madden:
I hereby move on this 19th day of April 2016, the Streetsboro Board of
Zoning and Building Appeals grant a variance to 1690 Manor Drive from
Section 1151.23a to allow a 6 ft fence in the required front yard, code
allows a 2.5 ft fence in the required front yard. The variance is for 3.5 ft.
Per application submitted March 29 2016 and subject to all planning and
zoning ordinances and site plan review of the City of Streetsboro where
applicable.
Mr. Stenglein seconded.
Roll Call: Yes- 6 No-0. Motion carried, variance approved.
9700 Page Road – Boulder Creek Golf Course
1) Request a variance from Section 1159.10(e) to allow a 3rd planter sign. Code
allows 1 planter sign. Applicant already has a previously approved variance for 2
planter signs. Variance is for 1 additional planter sign.
2) Request a variance from Section 1159.10(e) to allow the sign face of a planter
sign to be 50 sq ft. Code allows the sign face of a planter sign to be 40 sq. ft.
Variance is for 10 sq. ft. (variance request eliminated prior to meeting, they fall
within code)
Mr. Madden recused himself from the vote due to a personal relationship with
the applicant.
Joe Salemi 10121 Northfield Rd. Northfield Ohio- main office (sworn in)
Stated he is requesting a sign for Boulder Creek Golf Club, asking for a 3 rd sign
for the event center, and an additional for the expansion of the Lodge restaurant
and bar.
Mr. Bross clarified that the Bar and Grill was an expansion of what was
previously on the property, and they are just looking for a sign to direct them to
the right location that they are looking for.
Mr. Cieszkowski had nothing to add.
Mr. Vazzana had nothing to add.
Courtney Cantrell 2154 Prestwick Ct.- sworn in. Asked the exact location of the
planter sign, and would like to know the exact height of the sign.
Mr. Cieszkowski verified that the location of the planter sign will be located
adjacent to Page Rd. both will be within existing landscaped islands in the
median of the drive aisles to both the lodge and the event center. The height will
be no greater than 8 ft. above ground, from the tallest portion of the sign to
grade.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 10
Ms. Cantrell stated that her primary concern was that her property backs up to
the 14th green and so there is no impact. She was most concerned with
property value because the Boulder Creek developments premise was to
provide a view.
Mr. Salemi approached the board and explained the drawing of the sign.
Board members questioned where the third sign was on the drawing.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated that there were not three signs on the drawing because
one was previously approved. (visible from turnpike)
Mr. Liebler:
I hereby move on this 19th day of April 2016, the Streetsboro Board of
Zoning and Building Appeals grant a variance to 9700 Page Rd. Boulder
Creek golf course from section 1159.10e to allow a 3rd planter sign, code
allows one planter sign. Applicant already has a previously approved
variance with 2 planter signs. Variance is for 1 additional planter sign. Per
application submitted March 29 2016 and subject to all planning and
zoning ordinances and site plan review of the City of Streetsboro where
applicable.
Mr. McDole seconded.
Roll Call: Yes- 5 No-1. Motion carried, variance passed.
Citizens’ Comments
Board Members Comments
Announcements: The next Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing will
be held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at the Streetsboro Municipal
Building at 9184 St. Rt. 43.
Adjournment Motioned by Mr. Madden, Seconded by Mr. McDole.
Adjourned 8:22 P.M.
Attest:
________________________
Andrea Parma, Clerk
_____________________
Matt Bross, Chairman
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning and Building Appeals Hearing Minutes- April 19, 2016. pg. 11