BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 26, 2016
The hearing was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jones
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Board Members Matthew Jones, Brad Lamb, Bryan Baesel, Robert
Swisher, Karen Alfred
Assistant Law Director Sean Kelleher and Clerk of Commissions
Nicolette Sackman
OATH OF OFFICE – Karen Alfred
The Oath of Office was administered and members welcomed Ms. Alfred.
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE
2016-04 Martini Productions LLC
4/25/16 email from Zoe Komaransky, 1025 Richmar with questions
2016-05 Redinger
4/21 & 4/22/16 various emails from Tom Garvey, 28510 Hilliard Blvd. with concerns and no
objections
2016-06 Goodman
4/25/16 letter from Jesse Drucker, 1900 Sperry Forge Trail – objections
4/24/16 letter from Lionel Batty, 1901 Reed’s Court – objections
4/25/16 letters from S. Goodman with more details and signatures of surrounding property
owners in support of the request
DOCKETS
Docket 2016-03
Applicant: Jim Porcella
Premises: 25949 Westwood Rd., PP#215-22-037
Requesting to install a 400 sf shed 10’ off his side property line at variance with
1211.04(k) which states a utility building shall be permitted in a rear yard provided that
the maximum building size on lots 80,000 sf or larger shall be 400 sf in area with a
minimum side and rear setback of 20’; a 10’ side yard setback variance.
Mr. Porcella, sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained he is looking to replace an existing 10’ x 12’
shed with a 20’ x 20’ shed in the same location. The existing shed received a permit for this
location in 1976. The size of the new shed is permitted by code for his size lot but since it is a
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 1 of 8
new shed it must comply with the current setback requirements. He spoke to his neighbor who
was in favor of his variance request. Placing the shed in the same location would mirror the
neighbor’s shed setback and if he were to put the shed 20’ off the lot line it would be more
toward the middle of his yard and near some very large trees that he wishes to retain. Mr.
Porcella noted most of the sheds in the neighborhood were in a similar setback location.
Members reviewed and discussed the proposal noting the new shed would be in the same
location as the existing shed, mirror the neighbor’s shed setback and location, would not interfere
with any trees, and would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The new shed will be the same
size as the neighbor’s shed.
After a careful review of the plans and testimony of the Applicant, the Board finds that:
1. The property is located at 25949 Westwood Rd.
2. The applicant requested to install a 400 sf shed 10’ off his side property line requiring a
10’ side yard setback variance.
3. Applicant sought to replace an existing shed in the same location.
4. The proposed shed would mirror the neighbor’s shed setback.
5. Applicant alleged most of the sheds in the neighborhood were in a similar setback
location.
6. The problem could not be reasonably solved in any other manner because of existing
trees.
7. There would be no detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood.
8. The spirit of the code would not be violated by the granting of a variance.
Motion: Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Basel to grant a 10’ side yard setback variance.
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Basel, Swisher, Jones, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
Docket 2016-04
Applicant: Martini Productions, LLC
Premises: 1047 Richmar, PP#212-10-028
Requesting to install a fence 2’ from the planned right-of-way line at variance with
1211.04(b)(3) which states fences, walls or hedges may be permitted along the side or
rear lot lines to a height of not more than 6’ above the average finished grade except that
on a corner lot, no fence shall be located within 25’ from the planned right-of way line; a
23’setback variance for this location.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Kaminski (owner), sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained he is
seeking a variance to install a 3’ tall white vinyl picket fence 2’
off the sidewalk in what is the rear yard (along Langale). He
reviewed the layout of the property noting the lot is a corner lot
with the frontage being on Richmar and the width of the lot being
approximately 59’ wide. The fence will be located east of the
existing driveway and will enclose the rear yard. There is an
existing 6’ board on board fence on the south property line which
the new fence will attach to. This area is the only usable area for a
rear yard on the property and when fenced in will be
approximately 20’ x 40’ in area. There will be a gate along the
driveway near the garage and there is an existing patio in this area
of the yard. If he were to place the fence 25’ off the right-of-way
per the code it would place the fence in the middle of the rear
yard leaving a very small area to use as a rear yard. The property
is single family with a house with five bedrooms.
Members of the board reviewed and discussed the proposal. Mr.
Kaminski did not have a drawing of the fence but explained it will be a white vinyl picket fence
that one would get at Home Depot. He noted the closest corner of the fence would be more than
100’ away from the street corner so it would not impact any line of sight. The area between the
fence and the sidewalk will be grass and will be able to be maintained but he can put mulch or
plants in this area if the board requested. Some members felt this fence would probably be 50%
open and is more of a decorative fence than a privacy fence. Mr. Kaminski noted his desire is to
enclose the rear yard for pets or kids. The adjacent home on Richmar (to the south) has a fence in
the yard that extends to the sidewalk. It was discussed that a lot of corner yards face challenges
and this lot is much narrower than new lots with a width of 100’. It was questioned if shrubs
could be used instead of a fence and it was noted that fences and hedges (shrubs) fall under the
same zoning requirements for setbacks and height. Mr. Kelleher reviewed the code and noted
that ornamental fences are permitted at a height of 2 ½’ but also have setback requirements that
must be followed. It was discussed if the 3’ tall fence was replaced with a 2 ½’ ornamental fence
if that was permitted and what the setback requirement would be. Mr. Kaminski advised he did
discuss various fence heights with Mr. Grayem and Mr. Wilder in the building department and
was directed to apply for a variance request for BZA to review.
The following property owners were present and sworn in by Mr. Kelleher: Ms. Zoe
Komaransky, 1025 Richmar; Ms. Susan Vetrone, 1060 Richmar; and Ward 3 Councilman
Dennis Sullivan, 903 Dover Center. Testimony that was given: the property has been nicely
improved by Mr. Kaminski; the property is an investment property that will be sold; what is the
intent of the original setback; can a future owner replace the proposed fence with a chain link
fence; does the fence need to be install at this time; once the fence is installed the surrounding
property owners will have to live with it; it was preferred that the fence not be installed now and
be the decision of a future owner since the house will be sold; is the fence necessary; there is an
existing decorative corner fence on the property; the lot is unique and narrow; at the time of the
purchase of the property the code was in place and the owner should have made himself aware of
the regulations; the variance will stay with the property regardless of who owns it; place
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 3 of 8
conditions on the approval of the fence; and many of the residents in this area have lived there
for a long time.
In response to comments made it was explained that the board does not write the zoning codes
and could not say what the intent of the original code was but would assume it was to keep fence
setbacks on corner lots in line with the setback of the house or to provide lines of sight. This is
an older narrow lot of record and new lots have a minimum width of 100’ so a fence setback 25’
still allows for at least 75’ of area in a rear yard. This lot doesn’t meet that width and is much
narrower. Conditions will be placed on the request so if approved it cannot exceed 3’ in height
and must be a picket style fence that is at least 50% open. Once a variance is approved it will
remain with the property and can be install at this time or in the future. Mr. Kaminski said the
home will be for a family which would want the use of a rear yard and he would like to be able
to offer a future purchaser the option of a fence. What he is proposing matches the character of
the house and neighborhood and is within good taste and the improvements he has made to the
property.
After a careful review of the plans and testimony of the Applicant, the Board finds that:
1. The property is located at 1047 Richmar.
2. Applicant sought a variance to install a 3’ tall white vinyl picket fence 2’ off the sidewalk
in what is the rear yard (along Langale) requiring a 23’setback variance.
3. The Applicants property is a corner lot.
4. The problem could not be reasonably solved in any other manner because this lot is
approximately 59’ wide, much narrower than new lots which are a minimum of 100’.
5. The fence will be located east of the existing driveway and will enclose the rear yard to
provide a 20’ x 40’ fenced in area for pets or kids.
6. Without a variance the fence would be in the middle of the rear yard.
7. The closest corner of the fence would be more than 100’ away from the street corner and
will not be a sight line impediment.
8. The adjacent home on Richmar (to the south) has a fence in the yard that extends to the
sidewalk.
9. The property has been nicely improved by Applicant but is an investment property that
will be sold.
10. Applicant agrees that the proposed fence will be a white vinyl picket fence (at least 50%
open) and cannot exceed 3’ in height.
11. There would be no detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood.
12. The spirit of the code would not be violated by the granting of a variance.
Motion: Mr. Basel moved, seconded by Mr. Swisher to grant a 23’setback variance with the
conditions that the fence not exceed 3’ in height, and is a picket style fence that is 50% open.
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Jones, Basel, Alfred
Nays: Swisher, Lamb, motion carried
Docket 2016-05
Applicant: Andy & Gina Redinger
Premises: 28541 Laughlin Ln., PP#212-27-073
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 4 of 8
Requesting to construct a detached recreational fireplace 18’ from the rear property line
and 11’ from a building on the same property at variance with 1211.04(n)(2) which states
outdoor recreational fireplaces that are detached from a residence shall be located no
closer than 30’ to any rear property line of a lot, and, no detached outdoor recreational
fireplace shall be located closer than 20’ to any building on the same property; a 12’
setback from the rear property line variance, and a 9’ setback variance to a building on
the same lot.
Mr. Tom Jackson, contractor, sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained the homeowner is looking to
expanding their patio and install an outdoor recreational fireplace. Two variances are necessary –
one for the setback from the rear property line and another for the distance from the house. The
property is a pie shaped lot with the house being placed on the rear property line. This leaves a
shallow rear yard. The fireplace will be constructed on the corner of the old patio footprint and is
18’ from the rear property line at the closest corner. He showed an outline of the location of the
existing patio, which is being replaced with a new larger at grade patio (no variances required for
the patio).
Discussion ensued on the location of the fireplace and if there was an alternate location where it
could be placed without variances. Mr. Jackson explained due to the placement of the house on
the rear lot line any place they located the fireplace would require variances. If they were to
move the fireplace 20’ away from the house they would need a more substantial rear yard
variance request and they did not want to push the fireplace closer to the rear lot line and the
neighbor behind the applicant’s house. It was noted that Mr. Garvey, adjacent property owner to
the rear had submitted several emails with concerns and a final email that he did not object to the
proposed location that was shown on the plans. Ms. Sackman advised that Mr. Garvey did met
with her and Assistant Planning Director Will Krause to review the proposal and code. She stated
his email advised he did not object the proposed location but would not want it closer to his
property. The setback from the house was discussed and Mr. Jackson advised the fireplace will
be a natural gas fireplace that would not have ambers like a wood burning fireplace. A natural
gas fireplace is much safer than a wood burning fireplace. The board suggested that a condition
of approval be that the fireplace must be natural gas and cannot be use as wood burning fireplace
now or in the future, which Mr. Jackson had no objection to complying with the request as safety
was a concern.
After a careful review of the plans and testimony of the Applicant, the Board finds that:
1. The property is located at 28541 Laughlin Ln.
2. Applicant sought two variances to construct a detached recreational fireplace 18’ from
the rear property line and 11’ from a building on the same property requiring a 12’
setback from the rear property line variance, and a 9’ setback variance to a building on
the same lot.
3. The property is a pie shaped lot with the house placed on the rear property line leaving a
shallow rear yard.
4. There does not appear to be an alternate location where the proposed fireplace could be
placed without variances.
5. Applicant agreed that the fireplace will be ONLY a natural gas fireplace that would not
produce embers like a wood burning fireplace.
6. The problem could not be reasonably solved in any other manner.
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 5 of 8
7. There would be no detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood.
8. The spirit of the code would not be violated by the granting of a variance.
Motion: Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Basel to grant a 12’ setback variance from the
rear property line.
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Jones, Basel, Swisher, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
Motion: Mr. Basel moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to grant a 9’ setback variance to a building
on the same lot with the condition that the fireplace be only natural gas burning and wood
burning is not permitted in the fireplace.
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Jones, Basel, Swisher, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
Docket 2016-06
Applicant: Justin Goodman
Premises: 1884 Sperry Forge Trail, PP#212-18-069
Requesting to install a fence 5’ from the planned right-of-way line at variance with
1211.04 (b) (3) which states fences, walls or hedges may be permitted along the side or
rear lot lines to a height of not more than 6’ above the average finished grade except that
on a corner lot, no fence shall be located within 25’ from the planned right-of way line, a
20’ setback variance.
Mr. Goodman, sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained they would like a 20’ setback variance for a
fence on a corner lot. The proposed fence will be located 5’ off the sidewalk. He reviewed the
layout of his property noting it is a heavily wooded lot so there is not a lot of room in the rear
yard. Next year they are hoping to install a pool so they cannot place the fence 25’ off the rightof-way as it would be in the way of the future pool. They would like to be able to use more of the
rear yard and side yard with the placement of the fence 5’ off the sidewalk. The side street
adjacent to his house is Limpert and it is heavily used to access the subdivision. A fence would
provide more security and allow more use of the yard. Mr. Goodman presented photos of his
property. If he placed the fence 25’ off the sidewalk it would put the fence in line with the side of
the house. At 5’ off the sidewalk it will not encroach the sidewalk or use of the sidewalk. They
did propose a 6’ board on board privacy fence but that option was not popular with the neighbors
when they spoke to surrounding neighbors. They could change the style of the fence to a picket
fence and were open to reducing the height of the fence into the 3’ to 5’ height range and 50%
open but preferred some privacy. He noted there are other fences in the area similar to his
request, which he stated received variances, and showed photos of those fences. Even one of the
neighbors that is objecting his fence has a fence similar to his request. What he is proposing is
not unusual in the neighborhood.
Discussion ensued that if a pool is installed it will require a fence at a certain height, which the
board was uncertain of as pools are regulated under Chapter 13 which BZA does not deal with,
but any fence setbacks would have to comply with the fence code. Before deciding on a fence
height it should probably be determined how tall a fence is needed to be for a pool so the
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 6 of 8
Goodmans do not have to return in a year for another fence variance. There were concerns with a
6’ tall fence in this location due to sight issues and unlike the previous request earlier in the
evening this lot is not as narrow or small. This request has more impact on the neighborhood
than the earlier fence request. It was noted that other fences in the neighborhood may or may not
have received variances and those fences may have been installed under an old code which
permitted them in those locations. Mr. Goodman discussed several options for fence height and
style, and was open to varying his original request. Lengthy discussion ensued on the proposed
location, height and fence style. Mr. Goodman was not certain of the width of his yard but it was
noted most of the lots in this subdivision are similar in size. It was suggested that tabling the
request may not be a bad idea in order to research more information and for the applicant to
determine exactly what he would like to request.
The following property owners were present and sworn in by Mr. Kelleher: Jesse Drucker, 1900
Sperry Forge Trail; Lionel Batty, 1901 Reed’s Court; and Robert and Jody Curry, 1909 Reed’s
Court. Testimony that was given: the Batty’s fence that was in Mr. Goodman’s photo as
receiving a variance was an existing fence that was there in 1999 when Mr. Batty purchased the
home and he was permitted to replace it with a 48” fence rather than the 6’ that was existing; the
fence will be visible from inside and outside of surrounding property owner’s homes; safety
concerns with visibility; a lower fence would be better; the size and style of the fence keeps
changing pending the conversation and it is difficult to know what is being proposed; what
height is needed for a pool; the neighborhood has a park like feel; opposition to the location and
height; there was the feeling there would be a negative impact on property values if the fence
were installed; the fence is not appropriate; the fence is only on one side of the property; the
fence will block the visual line of sight; the application is slippery and continues to change with
different things being told by the applicant; when the home was purchased in 2015 by the
Goodman’s they should have made themselves aware of restrictions; there would be a big impact
on the neighborhood; the application is incomplete; the neighborhood is wooded; concerns with
safety with children riding bikes and the fence blocking the view when a vehicle is backed out of
a driveway and being in the unobstructed sight zone; and concerns children will be hit by a
vehicle backing out of a driveway.
Mrs. Sasha Goodman, sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained their driveway and house is on a
slope and the house sits higher up then the sidewalk so the fence would seem smaller from the
top of the slope. She submitted a letter with photos that they would be willing to install landscape
along the fence to beautify the fence. She would like the fence and surrounding area to look nice.
She reiterated there were other fences like their proposal in the neighborhood.
Chairman Jones recommended tabling the matter and requested that Clerk Sackman gather
additional information and further review by the city’s engineering and building departments.
Motion: Mr. Lamb moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to table Docket 2016-06 Goodman until the
May 31, 2016 public hearing.
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Jones, Basel, Swisher, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Basel to elect Mr. Jones Chairman, Mr. Swisher Vice
Chairman and Mr. Basel Secretary.
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Jones, Basel, Swisher, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
MISCELLANEOUS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Mr. Lamb moved, seconded by Mr. Swisher to approve the minutes of January 26, 2016
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Jones, Basel, Swisher, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
FINDINGS OF FACTS
Motion: Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Lamb to approve the findings of fact for Docket
2016-01 Garcia
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Basel, Jones, Swisher, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
Motion: Mr. Lamb Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Basel to approve the findings of fact for
Docket 2016-02 Rowher
ROLL CALL:
Yeas: Lamb, Basel, Swisher, Jones, Alfred
Nays: None, motion carried
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Jones adjourned the meeting at 9:04 P.M.
Matt Jones
Matt Jones, Chairman
May 31, 2016
Approved: ________________________
Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of April 26, 2016
Page 8 of 8
Nicolette Sackman
Nicolette Sackman, Clerk of Commissions