CITY OF AURORA
OHIO
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2015
The Aurora Board of Zoning Appeals met in a regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday,
October 14, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The meeting was called to order
at 6:59 p.m. by Chairman Terese Fennell.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Terese Fennell, Chairman
Tony Gramm
Jeff Iammarino
Tom Carr
Bernard McCarrell, Vice Chairman
Tim Novotny
Dean DePiero, Law Director
Meredith Davis, Asst. Director Planning, Zoning, Building Division
Marie Lawrie, Clerk
DECLARATION OF OATH:
Mr. DePiero swore in those that planned to speak.
Ms. Fennell read a prepared statement explaining the purpose of the Board of Zoning
Appeals meetings and appropriate conduct. She announced that the public would not
be limited to 3 minutes, but asked that the comments be kept short and on topic. She
also announced that the Family Fun Center would not be discussed at the meeting.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
MOTION:
To move item b) Lee Elliott, 545 E Jackson Rd (1509021) to the
end of New Business
Mr. Iammarino moved for approval; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried 4-0 on
a roll call vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
-2-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
There was a late submission from Jim & Bonnie Niebuhr, 610 Thornhill Lane, pertaining to
the appeal of Lee Elliott, 545 E Jackson Road.
MOTION:
To accept the letter from Jim & Bonnie Niebuhr for consideration
Mr. Gramm moved for approval; Mr. Carr seconded, and the motion carried 4-0 on a roll
call vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr, Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell
Nays:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION:
To approve the minutes of the September 9, 2015 meeting
Mr. Iammarino moved for approval; Ms. Fennell seconded, and the motion carried 3-0-1
on a roll call vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Gramm
Nays:
None
Abstentions:
Mr. Carr
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
DONALD GARDI, 537 PARKER RD (1509020) – ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE
Alexia Gardi, homeowner was present to answer questions. She was seeking a
variance to erect a third accessory structure on her property. She currently has a 64
square foot Garden Shed and a 180 square foot shed to house an ATV for snow removal
and lawn maintenance equipment. She stated that the house sits very far back from the
road and is not visible from the street. The plans indicate the house sits 680 feet from
the front property line. No letters were received in favor or against the variance request.
Ms. Fennell opened the floor for public comments or questions. There were none. Ms.
Fennell reported that when she drove by the property it was wooded and far back from the
street. She felt it would not be easily seen by vehicles that drive by. Mr. Iammarino felt
based on the size of the lot, that the request was substantial. Mr. Carr and Mr. Gramm
agreed. Ms. Fennell felt to build the structure within code and hinder the septic system
would not be advisable. Mr. Iammarino agreed. The board considered the variance
pertaining to a third accessory structure first.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
MOTION:
-3-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Gramm moved for approval; Mr. Iammarino seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0,
on a roll call vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
Alexia Gardi, homeowner was also seeking a variance pertaining to the placement of the
detached garage. This accessory structure would be permitted in the back yard or side
yard of the property. Ms. Gardi states that she cannot build the structure within permitted
zoning code because of the placement of the two existing structures and the topography
of the land.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Iammarino moved for approval; Mr. Carr seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0,
on a roll call vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Carr, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell
Nays:
None
GREEN ACRES 4EVER LLC, 56-60 GREENVIEW DR (1509022) – ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE WITH A (42) FORTY-TWO FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
Tom Reitz was in attendance to present the variance request. This is a rental property
that is has a current garage with a failing foundation. The current garage with attached
lean-to was built in 1950. The current structure does not meet current zoning codes. It
is too large, too close to the residence and too close to the road. The proposed
replacement structure, though not in compliance with code is closer to meeting with
current code. The applicant is asking for an 8 foot variance, erecting the accessory
structure with a (42) forty-two foot setback, where a (50) fifty foot setback is required.
The reason the applicant is seeking the variance is due to the topography of the property.
This property, as well as neighboring properties can have a lot of water issues. Placing
the structure within code requirements would create a need for more concrete and would
create less green area to absorb rain water. Mr. Reitz stated that the property would
have some economic return without a garage; however, most renters desire a garage
parking space. He discussed each of the checklist items in detail. Mr. Gramm inquired
about where the downspouts drain to. The current structure drains on the north side to
the storm sewer and the south side to the yard. Mr. Reitz plans to direct all the
downspouts on the new structure to the storm sewer. No letters were received in favor
or against the variance request. Ms. Fennell opened the floor for public comment.
Robert Hujer, neighbor at 79 Greenview Drive was present and in favor of the variance.
He stated that Mr. Reitz takes care of the property better than the last two owners. The
grass is always cut and drainage has improved. He felt the placement of the new
structure would be appealing. Ms. Fennell felt the variance was not substantial, as the
new structure would be more in compliance than the existing. Mr. Iammarino agreed.
Mr. Iammarino felt the replacement structure would enhance the neighborhood and Mr.
Carr agreed.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
MOTION:
-4-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Iammarino moved for approval; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0,
on a roll call vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
KURT WINKLER, 687 GLEN EDEN CT (1509025) – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
WITHOUT A FENCE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING
George Balog, of Country Club Builders was in attendance. The homeowner was
seeking a variance to allow a hot tub to be erected on his deck without a fence around it.
The hot tub will have a locking lid that the owners will control. The hot tub will be located
off the master bedroom on a deck. Erecting a fence would block the view of the lake in
the rear yard. There are no small children as neighbors and the yard is very private. No
letters were received in favor or against this variance request. Ms. Fennell opened the
floor for public comments. There were none. Mr. Gramm wanted to be sure that the
motion included a stipulation that the homeowner is responsible for keeping the hot tub
locked. Ms. Fennell felt that there was no place in the yard to erect the structure within
code and considered that it might be less accessible on the deck than in the back yard.
Mr. Iammarino was in favor of having a locking gate on the deck. The condo would yield
a reasonable economic return without the hot tub; therefore the board felt the matter at
hand was whether this variance was considered substantial. The board first considered
the request for a pool without a fence.
MOTION:
To grant the variance with the provision that a locking device be
installed for safety purposes to be approved by the Department of
Planning and Zoning
Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Iammarino seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
They next considered the variance request to allow the hot tub to be placed on the deck
where the code requires the accessory structure to be a minimum of (15) fifteen feet from
the house.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as submitted
Mr. Iammarino moved; Mr. Carr seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Carr, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell
Nays:
None
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
-5-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
PROPERTY DREAMS LLC, 300 N BISSELL RD (1509023) – RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE WITH (8) FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS
Vince Fraschetti, of Property Dreams LLC was on hand to represent the variance request.
The property is described as a half-acre lot with a (50) fifty foot wide frontage. The parcel
is very narrow and currently contains a very small house that will be demolished. The
couple who have purchased the property plan to clear the lot and build a new home.
They did not have building plans in hand at this time. They planned to wait to start the
project until they were certain that a variance would be granted. Ms. Fennell opened the
floor for public comment. There was none. No letters were received in favor or against
granting the variance. Mr. Iammarino did not feel the variance was substantial given the
size of the lot. He considered that the neighbor to the south voiced no objection. Ms.
Fennell felt that particular parcel was narrower than the surrounding lots. She also
commented that without a house on the property there wasn’t much of an economic return
for the property. She considered the statement from the current property owner that the
home currently on the parcel is considered unlivable. Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, and
Mr. Carr agreed.
Mr. Gramm felt that a new residence would enhance the
neighborhood. Mr. Carr stated that whatever plans the couple would have drawn would
have to meet the (8) foot side yard setback or they would need to return at a later date to
seek a revised variance.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Carr moved; Mr. Iammarino seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Carr, Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell
Nays:
None
CHRISTOPHER & COLLEEN KENNEDY, 585 CIRCLEWOOD DR (1509024) –
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH HEIGHT, SIZE, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE REQUESTS
Christopher and Colleen Kennedy, homeowners were in attendance. They stated that
the property is a corner lot requiring a (50) fifty foot setback. He needs (13) thirteen feet
to turn a car around. The home is ranch without a basement. There is not much
storage currently. They have (4) vehicles parking on the driveway currently. They own
a sports car and an RV that have to be housed offsite. He would like to build a garage to
house these items. He needs a (17) seventeen foot ceiling to house the RV. The
couple considered moving away for retirement, but would like to continue living in this
area. He feels the new garage would enhance the neighborhood. He believes
neighbors have comparable accessory structures and what he wants to build would fit in
with the area. He is an amateur woodworker and needs space for his tools. The location
that would meet the required zoning code would interfere with his septic system. He
reported that a neighbor had concern about the drainage from this new structure and he
plans to redirect the drainage appropriately. Ms. Fennell asked if it was possible to
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
-6-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
construct the garage to meet the maximum allowable square footage to conform to
zoning code. The applicant stated that it could be built to meet the code, however, he
has need for the additional (200) square footage to house additional woodworking tools
inherited from a relative. Mr. Carr expressed that it might be appropriate for the
applicants to screen this new structure with more landscaping. The applicants agreed to
this suggestion. Neighbors have expressed concerns to the applicant about some trees
that have been removed. These trees were dying and removed. The view of the
structure from Eggleston Road will have windows with shutters and additional
landscaping. Ms. Fennell opened the floor for public comments. There were none.
Letters in favor of this variance were brought to the meeting. Mr. Gramm felt that the
position of the garage and the added landscaping would enhance the neighborhood. Mr.
Carr agreed and felt it would be an improvement. Ms. Fennell understood the problem
with placing the structure near the septic system. Mr. Iammarino did not feel the
variance was substantial. He stated that governmental services would not be disrupted.
The board first considered the request for an accessory structure with a (37) thirty-seven
foot side yard setback.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Iammarino moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
The board next considered the request for a 1,200 square foot accessory structure.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Carr seconded, and the motion carried, 3-1, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr, Mr. Iammarino
Nays:
Ms. Fennell
The board lastly considered the request for an accessory structure with a height of (17)
seventeen feet.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Iammarino moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 3-1, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr
Nays:
Ms. Fennell
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
-7-
JEFFREY HEINDEL, 20 CARRIAGE SQ (1509026) – CHAIN LINK FENCE IN A REAR
YARD WHICH ABUTS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Emily Schmidt, homeowner was in attendance to present the variance request. She
stated that she would like the fence for her dogs and to keep coyotes out of her yard.
She is a gardener and has children frequently at her home. Route 43 is very busy and
the fence would keep the children and dogs safer. She feels the fence would make her a
better neighbor. The fence would be placed (100) one hundred feet away from Route
43. Her property also backs up to Miller School. Ms. Fennell stated that if the applicant
were to erect a wooden fence, she would not need a variance. The applicant felt that
with a wooden fence, which would require (50) fifty percent air between pickets, that it
would not contain dogs and keep out predators without adding some wire fencing to it.
The applicant would be permitted by zoning code to have chain link on the portions of the
yard that do not abut the public right-of-way. She would like to erect a fence of a uniform
material. Mr. Iammarino commented that the applicant’s yard is lower than the street
level. Ms. Fennell opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Mr. Gramm
felt that the variance was not substantial. Mr. Fennell felt the applicant didn’t have a lot
of options to keep the animals safe considering the busy road she backs up to. Mr. Carr
considered the fact that the fence will be (100) one hundred feet from the road. He also
noticed another chain link fence in the neighborhood.
MOTION:
To grant the variance as requested
Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Iammarino seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
LEE ELLIOTT,
545 JACKSON RD (1509021)
DEFINITION OF A SMALL ANIMAL
–
INTERPRETATION OF
Lee Elliott, property owner along with Gregory Anglewicz, Esq. was in attendance to
present the appeal. Mr. Anglewicz also sits on the Planning Commission for the City of
Hudson, Ohio. The zoning code states that any animal not defined as a small animal is
required to be kept on a lot with not less than 3 acres. According to the Portage County
Auditor, Mr. Elliott has 1.98 acres. Mr. Elliott received a violation from the City of Aurora,
Department of Zoning that he was in violation of the zoning code. This agenda item was
not a variance request, but an appeal of the decision that the chickens kept by Mr. Elliott
and Miss Barstow are not considered a small animal as defined in section 1133.02(62).
Mr. Anglewicz stated that the code defines small animals as being those that are
household pets. He states that in recent years, chickens have become more and more a
household pet rather than agricultural products. These chickens are kept as pets and
loved as a dog or cat. Many communities are being confronted with the trend of keeping
chickens and amending their local ordinances accordingly both in rural and urban areas.
Articles were included with this appeal that reflect this trend and show the available
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
-8-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
products to accommodate these chickens including diapers and coops and harnesses for
walking them. People are keeping them for pest control and companionship. An
additional benefit is the fresh eggs they provide. Included with the appeal was a letter of
support from the next door neighbor, Jay Thome of 585 Thornhill Lane. Additional letters
of support were presented at the meeting.
MOTION:
To accept letters of support from Vern Savage, Aaron Shorter, and
Kevin Sullivan, as well as a letter from Dr. Joshua Aaron Ginzler
Mr. Iammarino moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Carr
Nays:
None
Mr. Elliott stated that his chickens have names, and come to him. He informed the board
that they are not dangerous animals. He stated that Aurora allows ferocious dogs as
long as they are contained and you have proper insurance. He understands the
neighborhood concern that the chickens are loose in the neighborhood. He stated that
he also understands the complaint about the rooster. He explained that the rooster was
shipped to him by mistake and he plans to get rid of the rooster. He proposed that if he
could keep the chickens, he would build a run for them in the backyard where neighbors
could not see them. Mr. Anglewicz stated that the chickens have an additional benefit.
He circulated a letter written by Joshua Aaron Ginzler, PH. D. stating that he has
prescribed that Alison Barstow obtain some emotional support pets, such as low impact
animals, like chickens. Ms. Fennell asked Mr. Anglewicz if the City of Hudson has
approved the requests for chickens that they have received. He reported that they have
approved them, generally speaking with accessory structures included in the
applications. There has been concern pertaining to roosters. There was discussion
pertaining to keeping family pets contained on your property and on a leash off-site. Ms.
Fennell stated that roaming chickens would probably violate this rule. She mentioned
some chickens she regularly sees on Route 306 near the street and run over. She asked
the applicant if a fence is enough to keep the chickens contained. Mr. Elliott said he
would need a fence with a cover over it to keep them in. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Elliott where
the chickens are housed and how this relates to a small animal. Mr. Elliott says they go
in a coop at night. During the day, they roam around eating bugs. Mr. Elliott said when
it gets cold, he may bring them in the house; however, they would not be permitted to
sleep in his bed. Mr. Gramm quoted from an article provided by the applicant in the
packet, in which Joseph Nye, a retired Harvard Professor stated that chickens “are not
like a dog where you call them and they come. They are not “lap chickens”.” To which
Mr. Elliott replied that he would disagree. He said much like a dog, they will come for
treats. Mr. Anglewicz agreed that the chickens beg like dogs. He further stated that
keeping with the trend of keeping chickens as pets vs. keeping them as livestock; dogs
can be kept inside or outside of the house. Ms. Fennell asked when Mr. Elliott first got
the chickens and if he considered that chickens are a rural animal and that he lives in a
development. She wondered if he checked to make sure that they were allowed in his
district. She also inquired about how many chickens he started out with. He said the he
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
-9-
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
got them two years ago and he did not check because he thought he had enough property
for them. He started out with 6 hens. He now has 12 hens and a rooster. Mr. Carr
thanked the applicant for all the information in the packet, which was helpful. He also
pointed out that in the narrative that accompanied the application the zoning code
referenced was incorrect and confusing.
Ms. Fennell opened the floor for public comments.
Mark Glomski, 599 Thornhill Lane does not agree that a chicken is a household pet. He
is a close neighbor and the chickens come into his yard. He reported that the rooster
crows for hours at a time. He cannot sit on his deck or keep his windows open due to the
noise. He questioned if a coop would need to be located (100) one hundred feet from
any property line. He expressed concern over more sightings of coyote and fox. He
was concerned over the amount and potential smell of the chicken manure.
Lisa White, 615 Len Court, does not agree that a chicken is a household pet. She
quoted Aurora code section 618.07 Nuisance Conditions Prohibited. She reported
smelling the ammonia scent of chicken manure. She stated that everyone has had their
freedoms taken away. She said that safety was an issue because neighbors have had to
slam on their brakes to avoid chickens crossing the road. She reported that the chickens
are wandering and that increased coyote sightings are taking place. She stated that
code section 1153.05 prohibits grazing in the front yard. She reported taking pictures of
chicken grazing in front yards. She reminded the board that the purpose of the meeting
was the interpretation of a small animal and not the containment of the chickens. Ms.
Fennell stated that containment of the chickens was discussed in part, because if the
chickens are considered a small animal, they would need to be contained on the property.
John North, 590 Thornhill Lane does not agree that a chicken is a household pet. He
reports that the chickens cross the road to his property and roam in the street. He was
concerned about the animals that the chickens will attract including fox, coyotes, and rats.
He also stated his concern for property values. If the chickens are permitted to stay, he
was concerned that soon others will consider pigs, sheep, and cows as pets. He
reported that the police have come in regards to chicken complaints.
Christopher White, 615 Len Court does not agree that a chicken is a household pet. He
is a practicing medical physician in Ohio. He has routinely seen patients with salmonella
exposure from contact with chickens. He is concerned for children, pregnant women,
and pets which are walked around the neighborhood, pertaining to the exposure of the
chicken manure. He doesn’t believe chickens should be in a closed environment, such
as a house where the residents are breathing in communicable diseases that chickens
can carry.
Mike Basconi, of 645 Len Court is a pet lover; however he has a concern that if a chicken
is considered a small pet soon rats, raccoons, skunks, etc. would also fall under that
definition. He stated concern for hygiene pertaining to swine flu and bird flu. He was
also concerned about property values.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
- 10 -
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
Todd Harrell, 640 Thornhill Lane does not consider a chicken to be a service animal. He
understood that a service animal goes into your house and places of business. He was
not convinced that having a dozen chickens in your house was manageable with regards
to manure. He was concerned that Aurora’s 4H families will decide to bring their animals
home into their subdivisions. He was also concerned about traffic safety.
John Kudley, 520 E. Pioneer Trail, Councilman at Large commented on this issue. He
felt that this issue could impact the entire city. He stated that the code allows for
chickens in Aurora, however, there are lot size requirements. He asked the board to
uphold the zoning code and to deny the appeal. He understands the frustration of the
residents who are dealing with this issue as the duration of the due process takes place.
He is not in favor of rewriting the zoning code to include a chicken as a small animal.
Christopher White, 615 Len Court readdressed the issue. He stated that people
sometimes keep rattlesnakes as pets in their house. He asked the Board to consider the
safety involved in doing so. He addressed the safety concern pertaining to keeping a
chicken in a house safely. He did not think that possible.
Mr. Anglewicz readdressed the board. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to
address the definition of a small animal. He stated that pets are kept for affection and
companionship and not livestock purposes. He reported that more and more chickens
are being kept as pets and less as livestock. Though there was discussion about
wandering chickens, he stated that to be off topic and a separate issue.
The Chairman called for a (5) minute break at this point, after which the meeting
continued.
Mr. Anglewicz stated that if the chickens are considered a pet, the setback for an
accessory structure to house them would be (20) twenty feet to his knowledge. The
definition of a small animal does include birds. He reported that if you visit the
petfinder.com website, you will find adoptable chickens under the heading of birds. On
the separate issue of nuisance reports including smells and non-confined chickens, his
client will address this separately. Addressing the comments of salmonella, Mr.
Anglewicz reports that the Center for Disease Control has issued a report of information
pertaining to safe handling of pet chickens. This report is similar to the warnings
pertaining to pregnant women handling cat feces. He believes there are safety
precautions to follow with all small household pets. He stated that because the CDC has
issued instructions for safely handling chickens, this shows that chickens are becoming
more and more a household pet. He also addressed his belief that the chickens are
protected under the Federal Fair Housing Act as a support or therapy animal and would
therefore be exempt from zoning regulations. He reported that there is no requirement
under the Fair Housing Act to certify the chickens as support animals. He further stated
that a similar issue with chickens was just settled in Kent, Ohio due to the Fair Housing
Act.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant for the exact number of chickens on the property. The
answer was 13. Mr. Carr also asked if any of the chickens have been lost to coyote or
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
- 11 -
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
fox. Mr. Elliott reported losing one chicken to a hawk.
Mr. DePiero addressed the Board. He reminded the Board that the applicant has
received a determination from the Department of Planning, Zoning, and Building stating
that chickens are not considered a small animal under our codified ordinance definition
1133.02(62), therefore under code 1153.05(d)(2) the said chickens cannot be kept on the
property due to the parcel consisting of less than 3 acres. The applicants were given a
warning letter and are exercising their right to appeal in accordance with the Aurora
Codified Ordinances. The Board is hearing an appeal of the decision of the action of the
Director of Planning Zoning and Building and at the applicant’s request to interpret a
provision of the zoning code. Mr. DePiero stated that council for Mr. Elliott was well
prepared for the hearing; however, he strongly disagrees with their interpretation of the
Federal Fair Housing Act.
Ms. Fennell closed the floor for public comment and proceeded to allow the Board to
discuss the matter between the members.
Mr. Carr commented that a determining factor for him is the terminology “commonly
housed in a dwelling”. The statement made by Mr. Elliott that the chickens will be
permitted to come inside when it is cold, but would not sleep in his bed disqualifies the
chickens as a small animal under the definition.
Mr. Iammarino asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals was being asked to change the
wording of the definition of a small animal. Mr. DePiero responded that only City
Council, through the legislative process could change a code section or definition. He
stated that the Board was being asked for an interpretation based on the ruling of the
Planning, Zoning, and Building Director and Department.
Ms. Fennell agreed with Mr. Carr. She did not believe chickens to be considered a
household pet, but rather barnyard animals. She believed the statement made by the
applicant that the chickens would not be permitted in his bed was very telling. She also
felt that code definition “used for human occupation” was important. She stated that you
can’t safely hug/kiss a chicken. The issue of salmonella was very concerning to her.
Mr. Gramm considered the issues of odors and disease and stated a variance would be
considered substantial.
Mr. Iammarino felt that the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered
should chickens be included in the definition of a small animal.
Ms. Fennell stated that the homeowners could still enjoy their property without the
chickens. She did not think it was appropriate to have chickens in a subdivision. It
would be appropriate to have chickens on three or more acres according to code. She
felt that a chicken does not fall under the definition of a small animal. To house a chicken
humanely, it needs to be able to roam freely outside.
MOTION:
To affirm the determination that the definition of a small animal does
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
City of Aurora
October 14, 2015
Meeting Minutes
- 12 -
not include a chicken from section 1133.02(62) of the Aurora Codified
Ordinances
Mr. Carr moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call
vote.
Yeas:
Mr. Carr, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell
Nays:
None
MISCELLANEOUS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting
Mr. Iammarino moved to adjourn at 8:54 p.m. Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion
carried on a unanimous voice vote.
Terese Fennell - Chairman
Marie Lawrie - Clerk