MINUTES OF MEETING

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

JULY 8, 2010

***********************************************************************

Members Present: Van Atta, Wright, Farrell, Christ, Pempus

Presence Noted: Kevin Beirne, Building Commissioner

Andrew Bemer, Law Director

Dr. Jim Schieda, At-Large Council Member

************************************************************************

Mr. Pempus opened the July 8, 2010 meeting of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers of Rocky River City Hall.

1. NIKOLAS AND COLLEEN SILEA – 20530 Erie Rd – PUBLIC HEARING – Variance to construct a storage shed that is 240 sq. ft. vs. An accessory storage building shall not exceed 120 sq. ft. (Section 1129.09). Mr. and Mrs. Nikolas and Colleen Silea, homeowners, came forward to present their variance request.

Secretary Wright read the meeting notice and the names of the parties who received it. The applicants were sworn in. Mrs. Silea began by explaining that they would like to build a 240 sq. ft. shed because they have a small garage and a very short driveway. Because their garage is so small, it prevents them from being able to park in it. They would prefer to be able to keep their cars in the garage instead of parked on their unusually short driveway and also be able to store the equipment that is presently in the garage, inside the new storage shed. They have 5 bicycles, 2 motorcycles, a snow plow, a lawn mower and various tools that they are planning to store in the shed.

Mr. Pempus said that their request is very large and they are asking for twice as much as the Code allows. He asked why they think it is necessary to have such a large shed. Mrs. Silea said that their existing storage shed will only hold the lawnmower and 3 bicycles. Mr. Silea said that his small car, a Volkswagen Golf, almost doesn’t fit in his driveway and if they bring anything in as a project or want to assemble something in the garage space, they don’t have room for it. Mrs. Silea said that they thought a larger storage shed would be a more economical way for them to take care of the storage problem, rather than adding an addition to their garage. Mr. Pempus said that the Code has a purpose, which is to limit the size of these buildings. Mrs. Silea said that the storage shed does not take up the 22% of the property because they have a large yard. She said it would be located 6’ from their neighbors on Morewood Pkwy., and 5 ½’ from their rear yard neighbor. Her house faces Erie Rd. but it looks more like it would be on Morewood Pkwy.

Mr. Farrell asked Mrs. Silea for the size of their existing shed. She responded that it is an 8’ x 10’ dilapidated shed. Mr. Farrell said that they are asking for a building that is twice the size of what is allowed and it seems to him that with proper planning, a 10 x 12 shed should be large enough. Mrs. Silea said that she included a picture of their garage with the items they store in it now. She said that those items fill out the 13 x 17 garage and there are already items stored in their shed. Mr. Farrell said that he understands that, but they are asking for a shed that is more than the size of a single car garage.

Mr. Pempus said he is aware that this is not the only shed size that is available. He said that he has a one car garage and a very small storage shed on his property and he uses hooks to hang things to store. Mr. Silea said that they cannot use hooks in their garage because their ceiling is very low and there are no rafters. Mrs. Silea said that their house does not have a normal layout. The line where the garage door comes up is only about 1.5’ from the concrete ceiling which has mesh and steel reinforcements. Mr. Farrell said that if they store things by hanging them in the new shed, it is hard for him to believe that they need a building that is as large as what they are asking for.

Mrs. Van Atta said that in these tough situations, they need to look at the law. She explained that she will go over her opinion as to the factors this Board must look at for this kind of situation. She said that the applicant does not have to satisfy all of the factors in order to be granted the variance by law, but merely a preponderance of them, which is more than 50%. She said that she believes the property in question will yield a reasonable return without the variance. She believes that the request is substantial because they are asking to double the size that is allowed by Code. This large shed in a closely developed neighborhood could potentially present some property value detriment to surrounding neighbors. Mr. Silea said that the way they have laid out the proposed shed on the property would not cause it to be a detriment to their neighbors’ property values. He said that the neighbors on Morewood would not even see the shed because it is right next to their garage. The other side would be up against their rear yard neighbors’ driveway and there is a vegetative area to screen the shed. The shed would be on the farthest corner of the lot and it would not visually alter the neighborhood at all. Mrs. Van Atta continued by saying that she does not believe that the shed would interfere with the deliverance of government services. She asked Mr. Silea if they new about the Code restriction before they bought the property. Mr. Silea said that they were not aware of the Code. Mr. Pempus said that he believes that the applicants could have done their own homework at the time they were planning to purchase the property. Mr. Silea said that they interpreted and answered that question based on the way it reads and they did not know about the Code at the time. Regarding obviating the applicants’ predicament some other ways, she believes that there are other ways to deal with the storage problem beyond granting this very large shed. She said that the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code would not be observed by granting the variance, although the placement of the shed and the shielding of it do work in their favor. She said that the spirit of the zoning requirement is to prohibit overly-built, crowded properties because it diminishes the property value in closely built neighborhoods. Mrs. Van Atta said that for these reasons, it is her opinion that the scale tips against the variance. The shed requested is such a substantial size and she believes that there are other ways to deal with the storage issues. She does not believe the spirit of the law would be satisfied by granting the variance.

Mr. Pempus said that he believes that the applicants have made a fairly good case about their existing garage and driveway. The property is well screened, and he said that this might be the type of case where this Board asks if they would be willing to come closer to the existing Code. Mrs. Silea said that they would be willing to revise their request and ask for a smaller shed. Mr. Pempus said that he would be willing to allow a 150 sq. ft. shed because of the garage and driveway situation.

Mr. Christ suggested to the applicants that they think about how they will get in and out of a new shed. Mr. Silea said he would be happy to settle on 150 sq. ft. Mr. Christ said that he thinks that 150 sq. ft. is too large since they are supposed to work to the current Code that was recently changed from 100 sq. ft. to allow 120 sq. ft. He said that a 10’ x 12’ storage shed is a very large shed. Since they are on a corner lot, he said there is nothing to say that all of the landscaping will stay there. If the landscaping were removed, the shed would be visible to everyone. Mrs. Silea said that they do not plan on removing the landscaping, but that the manufacturer makes a 12’ x 12’ shed. Mr. Wright said he thinks the issue of maintaining the arborvitae will help to screen the shed.

Mr. Wright made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Christ seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

Passed

Mr. Farrell said that he agrees that a 12’ x 12’ storage shed would be justified by the special circumstances and it would be much more acceptable than a 20’ long shed.

Mr. Farrell made a motion to grant a variance to Nikolas and Colleen Silea, 20530 Erie Rd. to construct a storage shed that is 144 sq. ft. vs. an accessory storage building shall not exceed 120 sq. ft. The shed shall be screened by the existing vegetation. Mr. Wright seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

GRANTED

meeting adjourned at 9

2. GWEN PAULL – 21379 Erie Rd. – PUBLIC HEARING – Variance to locate a storage shed 1.5’ from the side and rear property lines vs. Detached accessory buildings must be located a minimum of 5’ from side and rear property lines. (Section 1153.15(1)). Mr. Burt Paull, homeowner, and his son, Zachery, came forward to present the variance request.

Secretary Wright read the meeting notice and the names of the parties who received it. The applicants were sworn in. Mr. Paul said that they have lived in their house for 18 or 19 years and when a car and an economy van are parked in their garage there is no room for bicycles, lawn mowers, snow blowers, etc. In the back of their driveway there is an existing pad that is 10’ x 20’. They have decided to locate their 7 x 7 prefabricated resin vinyl storage shed on that slab. The slab goes up to the property line and they would like to center their shed on it, which would bring the shed 1.5’ off of the side and rear property line. The pad gradually slopes about 2 to 2½ “ and the pad and roofline follow the fence, which is also sloped with the grade. The shed is 8’ tall at its highest point, in the middle. He added that the pad is not necessary for them to use to park their cars on.

Mr. Pempus said that their main concern is the distance from the property line and this Board normally is concerned with how someone would get in next to the shed and fence to maintain that area. Mr. Paull said that 1½ ‘ from the edge of the fence would allow enough space for him to get back there with a snow blower to clear debris and to maintain the fence. Mr. Pempus asked Mr. Paull if a 2’ space would be more comfortable for him to get into. Mr. Paull said that he could make it 2’ but then it wouldn’t be centered on the pad. He said there are also 3 hemlocks located to the left of the proposed site and also an oak tree. He said he would have to trim a couple of limbs to put the shed in that location. The people directly behind him would not be able to see the shed because they planted arborvitae 1 or more years ago.

Mr. Farrell said he thinks that the shed is a modest enough size and asked Mr. Paull if it has a floor in it. Mr. Paull said that it is a prefabricated shed with a rubber floor and it does not need to be bolted to the concrete because the weight will keep it in place. He said that if he pulled everything out of it, he is sure he could move the shed to get in behind it. Mr. Farrell said that because this is a small enough building, the request is not an issue.

Mrs. Van Atta said that they received a letter from the Paull’s neighbor to the west. She said that the only thing she can see as being a problem, as stated in his letter, is that the shed is off vertical and the slope of the roof ridge would be noticeable to the neighbors. Mr. Paull said that there is a 2” slope so that the water runs down the driveway. The roofline will slope so that when the water runs off of the shed, it will go down the driveway. The 5’ fence also follows the slope, so the shed will be parallel with the fence. He said that to pour concrete to level the pad would call attention to the shed even more. Mrs. Van Atta confirmed with Mr. Paull that the ridgeline on the shed will be approximately 8’ tall. Mr. Paull confirmed that and said it slopes down to the side edges making it about 5.5’ or 6’ tall there.

Mr. Pempus said that it doesn’t bother him that Mr. Paull wants the shed centered on the pad. He said that the shed will not be visually detrimental to the other neighbor because the fence is there. He does not think the variance is substantial or that governmental services will be impacted. He said that it makes sense to put the shed where Mr. Paull wants to put it.

Mr. Christ said that he is troubled that 1.5’ vs. 5’ is very substantial. He said he would like some testimony that the shed can’t be located somewhere else. For instance, if they locate it in front of the hemlocks, it will bring it 5’ from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Paull said that if he locates the shed in front of the hemlocks, then it would be located right in the middle of their patio. He said that the Hemlocks were planted to hide the garage that is behind them and there is also an oak tree. If he were to come in 10’ from the back of the fence line, it would be right in the middle of the back yard. Mr. Christ said that it comes back to the fact that they are putting it adjacent to neighbors and there is a reason that the Code says a 5’ setback. Mr. Paull said that the shed won’t be visible to the 2 neighbors behind them because of the garage and the arborvitae.

Mr. Farrell said that it would be about 3’ or 3.5’ from the fence if they moved the shed all the way over to the edge of the concrete pad. Mr. Paull said that it would not be centered on the pad if they located it there. Mr. Farrell said he is not buying the aesthetic requirement to center the storage shed, especially when he sees the condition of his driveway. If it were moved over, there would at least be 3’ beside it that would address some of the neighbor’s valid concerns. Mr. Paull said that if he locates the shed where he is proposing, it will cover a major crack that was caused by his neighbor’s tree.

Mrs. Van Atta said that the neighbor’s letter comments on the state of repair of the applicants’ concrete and the windblown debris. However, these are irrelevant because it is not his property. The only thing that would affect the neighbor would be view, drainage problems, or some kind of damage to his property. Mr. Farrell asked if there would be a gutter on the shed. Mr. Paull said that there would be no gutter but the water will land on the concrete and then flow down the driveway. He said that the fence is on his property, so he said there might be 2’ between the side of the shed and the property line because the fence is 6” thick. Mr. Wright said that if he moves the structure to the east and place the leading edge on the line that divides the concrete pad and the slate next to it, then it will allow for more rain runoff on the pad as opposed to the neighbor’s property. It will also give the applicant more room to maintain the area next to the shed. He said he would like to see the shed moved over to that point.

Mrs. Van Atta said that it sounds like Mr. Paull’s proposal places the shed 2.5’ from the property line and not from the fence. The Code only requires 5’from the property line. She does not see a problem having it centered because the yards are small and space is important. Mr. Wright asked if the concrete goes right up to the fence. Mr. Paull said that the edge of the pad is approximately 4” from underneath the fence because there is vegetation growing along the fence.

Mr. Pempus said that the applicant can choose whether the Board votes on locating the shed 1.5’ from the property line, as proposed, or they can vote on moving it over to the other slab edge. Mr. Paull said he would be fine with moving the shed over to the other edge of the concrete pad.

Mrs. Van Atta made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Wright seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

Passed

Mr. Wright made a motion to grant a variance to Gwen Paull, 21379 Erie Rd., to locate a storage shed approximately 3’ from the side and rear property lines vs. detached accessory buildings must be located 5’ from side and rear property lines. The applicant has gone through a lengthy discussion with this Board and arrived at this conclusion. Mr. Farrell seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

GRANTED

3. LARRY AND KATHRYN READ – 18791 Inglewood Ave. – PUBLIC HEARING – Variance to locate an air conditioner condenser 6’ from the side property line vs. air conditioner condensers may be located in the side yard, but not less than 10’ from the side lot line. (Section 1153.16(k)). Mr. Larry Read, homeowner, came forward to present his variance request.

Secretary Wright read the meeting notice and the names of the parties who received it. The applicant was sworn in. Mr. Pempus asked Mr. Read what the noise impact would be for his neighbors. Mr. Read said that there is an existing window air conditioning unit in the same location that will be removed when they get central air. Since it is an old unit, he said he is sure the noise will be less than it is now. The unit he intends to install is brand new, made by Amana, and he provided the Board with the specifications of the new air conditioner. Mr. Wright commented that he is willing to bet it will be very quiet. Mr. Read said that they upgraded their choice in units because it is quieter than his first choice.

Mr. Pempus asked why the condenser cannot be located behind the house. Mr. Read said that his house is unique in that the living room window faces the backyard. There is landscaping right outside that window and the proximity to the furnace is also a concern. The chimney is located right outside of the furnace so, if they moved the unit to the back, they would have to remove a substantial amount of the landscaping. The condenser would also be sitting right outside their living room window in the back, as well. Mrs. Van Atta said it appears from the pictures that Mr. Read’s house is sitting further back on the property so the condenser would not be located close to the neighbor’s windows. Mr. Read said that the distance from the back of his neighbor’s sunroom to the proposed location of the condenser is almost 20’. He said he discussed this with his neighbor and she was fine with it. However, she said that she would prefer that it be hidden but there is really not any place else to locate it. He will plant evergreens around the condenser to screen it.

Mr. Farrell said that there is actually 11’ available and the applicant could locate the unit further off of the property line by installing it closer to the house. Mr. Read pointed out that there is a window well for the basement window in that location which causes them to have to bring it out a little further. The Board discussed other places to locate the condenser. Mr. Read said that the contractor recommended that they not locate the condenser right under a shrub.

Mr. Christ said that they aren’t exactly sure how far the condenser will be from the property line because Mr. Read doesn’t know exactly where his property line is. Mr. Read said he assumed that the neighbor’s driveway is the property line. He said that there is a control valve for his sprinkler system, which is located by the second window well, pretty far toward the back of the house. It is their intention to locate the condenser as close to their house and as far back as they can. Mr. Wright said that because they don’t know where the property line is, he would like them to move it 6” to 10” closer to the house. Mr. Read said that he would definitely let the contractor know that they would like it placed as close as practical to the house. Mr. Wright said that he will be planting around it anyway.

Mr. Christ made a motion to close the public hearing. Mrs. Van Atta seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

Passed

Mr. Christ made a motion to grant a variance to Larry and Kathryn Read, 19891 Inglewood Ave., to locate an air conditioner condenser 6’ from the driveway vs. Air conditioner condensers may be located in the side yard, but not less than 10’ from the side lot line. The condenser must be at least 5’ from the property line and applicant should establish where the property line is. The applicant has indicated his practical difficulties. Mr. Wright seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

GRANTED

4. JOHN ROTTENBORN – 2769 Carmen Dr. – PUBLIC HEARING – Variance to retain a storage shed with a height of 11’ vs. the height of accessory buildings and structures shall not exceed 10’ (Section 1154.09(b)) and a Variance to retain a storage shed that is located 3’- 1½” from the side yard property line vs. minimum setback from side and rear lot lines of 5’ for detached accessory buildings (Section 1153.15(1). Mr. John Rottenborn, homeowner, came forward to present his variance request.

Secretary Wright read the meeting notice and the names of the parties who received it. The applicant was sworn in. Mr. Pempus asked Mr. Rottenborn if he knew he needed a permit prior to installing his storage shed. Mr. Rottenborn said he was not aware that he needed a permit. Mr. Rottenborn said that he talked to all of his neighbors prior to putting the shed up and they were all fine with it. They were aware of what it would look like and where it would be located. He said there is a French drain between his property and the property behind him because his property is approximately 1.5’ lower than theirs. He continued the French drain and brought it around the storage shed in case water is ever an issue, which is why the shed sits up a little higher. Mr. Rottenborn said that he built the shed himself. Mr. Pempus and Mr. Wright said that they don’t see any issues with this storage shed.

Mr. Christ asked how difficult it would be to move the storage shed over to 5’ from the property line. Mr. Rottenborn said it would not be easy to move.

Mr. Wright made a motion to close the public hearing. Mrs. Van Atta seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

Passed

Mr. Wright made a motion to grant a variance to John Rottenborn, 2769 Carmen Dr., to retain a storage shed with a height of 11’ vs. the height of accessory buildings and structures shall not exceed 10’. This is an existing shed and the photos that the applicant has presented show that this is not an issue. The adjacent arborvitae shrubs are taller than the ridgeline of the shed. Mr. Farrell seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

GRANTED

Mr. Wright made a motion to grant a variance to John Rottenborn, 2769 Carmen Dr., to retain a storage shed that is located 3’ – 1 ½” from the side yard property line vs. Minimum setback from side and rear lot lines of 5’ for detached accessory buildings. The applicant has indicated that this is an existing shed. He has taken into consideration the existing French drain and has built this with a permanent foundation and there is no issue with the additional 1’ – 10½”. Mrs. Van Atta seconded.

5 Ayes – 0 Nays

GRANTED

The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Eric Pempus, Chairman Patrick Farrell, Member