Planning and Economic Development Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening and welcome to the City of Green Board of Zoning Appeals this Thursday, May 21st. If you would all please join us to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We call the meeting to order. Call attendance, please.

Mr. Incorvati, absent. Ms. Newbert, absent. Mr. Alidala?

Here.

Mr. Spate?

Here.

Mr. Schultz?

Here. Okay, thank you. We have three items on our agenda tonight. Through these, I think in the order we have them should work okay. When I call you up, I'll ask you to please step up to the podium. If you're using the podium mic, that's fine. Otherwise, if you step away to look at a drawing or illustrate something for the camera, I'll ask you to use the handheld, please. So at that time, we will score you in and get your name and address. So first time tonight we have. BZA number 2026-009, Jeffrey Pritt of 6267 Caribou Drive, Green, Ohio, 44216. The appellant, Jeffrey Pritt, 6267 Caribou Drive in Green, is requesting a variance to allow a driveway that has a width of 36 feet within 10 feet of the road right-of-way line. This driveway was previously installed at a width of 56 feet. This does not comply with Green Codified Ordinance Chapter 157 Planning and Development Code, specifically 157.1347B3B, which specifies a maximum driveway width of 24 feet within 10 feet of the right of way. Mr. Pritt is therefore requesting a 12 foot variance to permit a 36 foot wide driveway with the extra 20 feet removed. Who's here tonight to present this case, please? Please come up. Your name, please, and who you're representing.

Yes, my name is Jeffrey Pritt, along with my representation, Alex Clay.

Jeffrey Pritt. Yes. Good address for you, Jeffrey.

6267 Caribou Drive, Green, Ohio, 44216.

Okay, thank you. Let me swear in, I guess. Do you swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, regarding this matter tonight?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. And you, sir?

Oh, yeah, Alex Quay.

If you could use the mic, please. Thank you.

Alex Quay, Q-U-A-Y. Thank you.

And you're representing?

Yeah, yeah, attorney with Buckingham, Dillon, and Burroughs.

Okay, thank you. And have an address for you, please.

Office address would be 3800 Embassy Parkway, Suite 300. That's Akron, Ohio, 44333.

Thank you. Okay. Could you please present your case for the night, your issues, the variance request there? Wait up.

Thank you, Chairman and members of the board. Mr. Pritz here to request a variance to correct a breach of the zoning code section you referenced. He constructed, and if we've got, I don't know if you've got the documentation handy, the... application yes um to construct i mean he constructed a 36 foot wide driveway in addition to the driveway where it meets the road he included two what we would call aprons that faint out from the surface thanks if you look at the picture where the x's are would be the excess tolerance creating that 56 foot width The driveway itself as it stands is 36 feet in width. Mr. Pritt proposes and seeks a variance to remove the existing backfield side pads designated by the Xs on the side. And we spoke in conjunction with remedying situation, Lisa Dean Carey of the law department to address the issue to bring it into conformity. So what Mr. Pritt's seeking is an extension of the 24 feet to the existing 36 feet in width. He does have a licensed concrete company lined up to complete the removal as designated in the X areas.

So the other drawing we have here on our packet that showed a 24-foot max at the right-of-way.

I'm sorry, which drawing are you in reference to? This one here. The next page. That wouldn't be an ARSA middle. I don't believe we've received that back.

That was a drawing that was made up by our engineering department.

Yeah, we have not been provided that.

Okay. It was given out at the original time that they told you your driveway was not compliant.

Oh, from the previous submittal?

Correct.

Understood. The intent of the original proposed design was actually to bring our property more in line with some of the properties we saw in the neighborhood itself. In fact, that's how we originally plotted out... the width of the driveway as we literally took a walk around the neighborhood and we said, okay, well, if we're going to be redoing this driveway and we're trying to beautify and rectify some of the damage, let's see what other people are doing. And in particular, one of the main ones that mirror a lot of how our house is set up contains basically the exact same setup we're proposing today, which has no side pads affiliated with it, but has the same width.

So what you're showing us where you're proposing is it would still be a noncompliance.

Correct. It would be effectively from 24 to a 35 foot in width or 36 feet in width.

When we had come to the previous submittal, it seemed that the larger issue at hand was the 56-foot overall width with the side paths that weren't common to the neighborhood, whereas we've revised this to be more in accordance with how the rest of the neighborhood has these design features, being larger lots, often three- or four-car garages.

And that would have been that this current proposal was in conjunction with discussions with Lisa Dean regarding appropriate compliance?

Comments from the board?

Why do you feel we should grant you special permission for this project?

Well, from our standpoint, really we're not looking to seek any... Sorry, I don't know how to combat that with your system. Really, we're not seeking anything different than what our neighbors already have common to the neighborhood. We're really not seeking any special, certainly the original side paths could be viewed as a special feature, understood, and that's why ultimately when we had those discussions with Lisa, that was kind of the top of mind thing to exclude, which is why we have our contractor ready to remove those at our expense upon approval.

Just quick question. The dimension that you're showing there by the curve, it says 35 plus, and that's the example that you're showing. That's at the curb, right?

Correct. Yeah, I wasn't sure. You know, the flares out at the end, so it's beyond 35 feet, but I wasn't sure if the more important measurement for your...

If we take it 10 foot from the face of curb, what will that be? What the dimension will be? That's 35. 35?

Yeah, that's why, you know, it's a three-car garage, which is typically a driveway of 20 foot down town. Each of them runs all the way down from the building and flares out to the side by the front entryway. That's actually specifically when me and my wife were walking around the first time. We said, well, okay, this is a pretty common layout. This is exactly the layout we'll go for when we did our initial design. The only really added feature we had was the side pads, which we're now proposing removing.

Yes, if you were to look at the pre-existing to help clarify this help, that's the sort of flared out, slight flared out design is what's consistent with the neighborhood. What Mr. Pritt previously sought and was denied was the additional pads with Xs. Those are existing concrete pads that he would propose to be removed.

So you guys are, I mean, you haven't removed anything yet, but your plan is to remove concrete, correct?

Correct. And actually, before we even submitted this, we secured from our contractor, who was, if you recall, the previous meeting, the one who kind of filed the variance in the wrong area in the first place, that basically they are on board and ready to remove them within a few weeks of this approval.

So you guys were given this plan after the last one. Was there an issue with this was a way to comply with the code completely?

We weren't provided that after the last one. We were actually provided that after we did our initial submittal, but we never received a response from the city. We received a response from the city after the work was completed. We actually weren't provided any documentation after the first submittal.

Other than what the code requires, 24 foot.

We never received any documentation after the first submittal.

That was in the code.

But the code does exist that represents 24 feet.

So you're still noncompliance with the code?

yes that's what our submittal is for is basically to retain the primary the driveway that's in accordance with the rest of the neighborhood but remove the items that are unique so the additional footage is is what's being requested you know through through this variance request understood um you will have crews there to remove concrete is there a reason why you choose not to

Use this plan to remove concrete and be compliant with the code?

The way that the driveway is poured doing the removal of the side pads is pretty intuitive. It'll make it feel like one complete driveway. If we were to cut in in that exact manner, it would obviously kind of feel like a hack job of kind of the original work. It would also kind of make it different than some of the other areas we were targeting to be familiar with in the first place.

Okay. Any other comments from the board? Student representatives?

Okay. Can we get the planning input on that?

So per the code, as you guys know, that it has to be the 24 feet. But one thing is that they built this house before 2009 when the previous code was not really mentioning anything about the driveway width. I will pause. put that out. The other thing is, as they mentioned, other neighbors, they have done that. Again, they were previous to 2009, so they never got any variance, but the code was not there before 2009. So if they are willing to remove those 10 feet from the sides, Planning doesn't have any problem with that.

Just the 210 foot. The wings on the sides.

Mm-hmm.

And for context, Jeffrey, I mean, maybe you want to speak as to the preexisting condition of the driveway before it's board.

Sure. When we took possession of the house, we would I would say it's pretty clear that we were kind of buying the worst house in the neighborhood, if you will. And as part of that was a driveway that we knew from day one was going to need to already have this work done to it to be replaced. And when we went forth and doing that work, which to our knowledge was already a little beyond a twenty four foot width in the first place, you know, basically what we did is the same thing we've done with every other intent of when we go and look around our neighborhood, they're relatively larger lots. We're, if anything, trying to bring our property more in line with what we see commonly featured throughout the neighborhood and overall beautify the property. So when we set forth and did the driveway plan, we did it the same way we did every other kind of part of the house, where we looked and said, okay, how can we make this better and make it feel more at home in its environment? So ultimately, we launched forth and laid out this plan that we felt would really improve the condition of the property, also make it safe so there's no trip steps for elderly or somebody of that nature. When we created the plan obviously was submitted to the wrong place That's what we discussed in the previous variance meeting But now what we're looking to do is just bring the elements into alignment with the rest of what we see surrounding us The issue I'm also going to mention is a wider drive sometimes can cause a concern for pedestrian potential danger

That's another reason why of the code being the way it is. So with that, in fact, can you respond to that at all? By taking the two-foot tabs off, won't correct that.

Sure. And actually, as part of the original design, one of the reasons we wanted to widen it in the first place is in case there was ever any company vehicles and also in a world where we're doing heavy renovation on the property and they frequently park in the driveway. Basically, we wanted to create an environment where we didn't have to park a company vehicle on the road because this neighborhood does not feature any sidewalks, and it doesn't sound like it probably ever will. So we wanted as much as possible to be able to park all of our vehicles as our family grows into the driveway as well, which is one of the reasons we put forth the original design implementation, because we found we were leaving a lot of them on the road. We're watching kids come down the street on bikes and having to go around company vans, which is allowable in terms of how the parking is set up, but ultimately it would be better if we could keep the vehicles off the road in the first place.

Further comments from the board? Okay, at this time, any questions, anyone in the audience? We did receive a couple letters, neighbors expressing concern over the variance as well. At this point, I'd like to put it up for a motion. Okay, I have no motion proposed.

I'd like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion to approve the variance request as written to allow a driveway that has a width of 36 feet within 10 feet of the road right-of-way line.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a second to the motion? No second to the motion. Variance does not pass.

We need to call roll anyway.

Okay. Roll call, please.

Mr. Schultz?

Yes.

Mr. Avadola?

No.

Mr. Spate?

No. Okay.

With that,

Variance has not passed, so if you care to go back and revise your plan, we'll take a look at it at that point, and please work with the Board of Zoning on that, the exact dimensions required. And I, at that time, would probably recommend your house and not be too distracted by others in the area.

So.

Thank you.

Okay. Second item tonight, BCA number 2026-0010. Steven Winston of 1584 Briarwood Way, Green, Ohio, 44685. The appellant, Steven Winston, 1584 Briarwood Way, is requesting a four-foot right side setback variance to permit a residential accessory to remain as constructed, which will leave a one-foot side setback, where a five-foot setback is required. This does not comply with Green Codified Ordinance Chapter 157, Planning and Development Code, specifically 157.872i, accessory uses. Who's here to represent us tonight, please?

Stephen Winston.

Stephen, can we have your address here, 1584?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Okay. I'm going to swear you in, please. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth regarding this matter tonight?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Okay, if you could please present reason for the variance request, please.

Good evening, and thank you for your time and consideration regarding my variance request. My name is Stephen Winston. I am the owner of the property located at 1584 Brightwood Way in Green, Ohio. I'm requesting approval of the variance, excuse me, Of the existing detached structure located in the right rear corner of my property, the original zoning permit was approved by the city requiring a 5 foot right side setback. However, after the construction, it was determined that the structure was built with approximately 1 foot right side setback instead of the required 5 feet. The structure is located at the rear of the property and does not interfere with drainage, utilities, visibility, or neighboring properties. The placement has not changed the character of the neighborhood and there has been no known issues or complaints associated with this structure. This reduced setback was not intentional and the structure itself does not create any additional advantages or impact behind the current placement. Requiring removal or relocation of the structure would create a significant financial harm set and would extremely difficult considering the completed structure. I respectfully ask the board to consider the minimal impact of the setback reduction and approve the variance request to allow the existing structure to remain in its current location. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Winston. Comments from the board?

What was the order of operations of how this exactly happened? Did you have property corners pinned after the construction?

So agreeably, definitely my fault in not understanding the complete process. Went through the zoning for the city of Green. Tom Fazio actually came out and said, yes, the structure is fine where you're going to put it. At that time, I gave it to the builders and I, assuming based off of Can I show you this please?

Yeah.

Based off of the parcel viewer, which was taken from Summit County, that I was about 15 and a half feet away. Not knowing that, although it is a legal document and it's not a correct representation of the property, the builder, who I also assumed was giving the plans, plus Summit County plans that had to be approved also, that he understood where to place it. So in my negligence of not understanding that I had to find the property pins, it was stuck inside of an existing fence, which also was assumed that was at least 12 1⁄2 feet away from the property line, and it was built, sir.

Thank you. Board comments? Other? Anyone in the audience?

I did supply many photographs also of the neighboring property and where her fence was compared to my fence. If that helps at all.

We have those. Thank you.

This building is actually in, is there posts into the ground?

Oh yeah, it was, I got the best builder, put the best foundation. Wrong location. Oh, wrong location. And truly, getting all the zoning permits, I truly thought I was covered, and I do deeply apologize. and we're gonna be making many home improvements, and this will be a learning experience.

Any comments? Okay. All right, at this time, hoping for no comments from the audience. Okay. Anyone want to propose a variance?

Motion, please. I'd like to propose a motion to approve. The four-foot right side setback variance to permit a residential accessory to remain is constructed, which would leave a one-foot side setback where a five-foot setback is required.

Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Do I hear a second? I'll second the motion. Roll call, please.

Mr. Schultz?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Aladala?

Yes.

Okay, motion passes three. Thank you.

So will I get a notification in the mail or is everything just good to go from here on out?

I'll send you a letter in the mail and then get with Mr. Fazio to make sure he can close out your permit.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Third one on our agenda tonight is Cornerstone Design, LLC, 6287 Caribou Drive. The appellant, Cornerstone Design, LLC. 7985 Hillsondales Road Northeast in Madison is requesting the following variances for the property located at 6287 Caribou Drive. One, a 24-foot front setback variance to permit a residential accessory to be constructed which would leave a 26-foot front setback where a 50-foot setback is required. This does not comply with green codified ordinance chapter 157 planning development code, specifically table 157.101-1 residential site development standards. And two, a variance to permit an accessory structure to be located in the front yard where accessory structures are only permitted in the rear yard. This does not comply with Green Codified Ordinance Chapter 157 Planning and Development Code, specifically Table 157.07 allowed accessory uses. Who's here tonight to present this case, please?

Hello, I'm Kelly Train, the homeowner, 6287 Caribou, Green, Ohio.

Thank you. Let me swear you in, please. Do you swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, regarding this matter tonight, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

I'm also here with my builder.

Okay. And your name, please?

Brian Simpson, Cornerstone Homes and Design, 7985 Hills and Dales, Massillon, Ohio.

Okay, and it's for you too, sir. Do you swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth regarding this matter tonight, please?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Okay, so what is the case here? You have two items on your variance request.

I'm going to read a statement here first. Good evening. For the record, my name is Kelly Train, the owner of the property. I'm here tonight to respectfully request a variance from the standard setback requirements to allow the addition of a permanent auxiliary structure for more storage space on our property. I deeply respect the integrity of our city's local zoning ordinances, which is why we've engineered this project to ensure it satisfies the criteria articulated by the variance process. This request is driven entirely by a unique physical hardship inherent to the land itself. Our corner lot has a gas line running north and south located on the east of the property. Due to the regulations articulated by Enbridge, we are unable to build on a significant portion of our backyard, thus eliminating the natural location of a permanent auxiliary structure. Complicating matters is that our leach field runs northwest to southeast on the property. Overall, these combined dynamics created by the gas line having two front yards and the location of our leach field has severely reduced the perspective locations of a permanent structure to increase our storage capacity. We've requested the absolute minimum variance necessary at the proposed location. The original design we had intended was much larger, but out of respect for the zoning code, we scaled the project back. In addition, we've met all Summit County Health Department requirements, and it is inspected and passed on our proposed plan. As we've considered other locations of the structure, we've determined that any location would indeed require a variance to be granted by the committee for a structure that would meet our needs. In addition to the gas line being on a corner lot and the location of the leach field, the sloping topography of our property presents more challenges for site prep. Any additional location outside of our proposed location will increase significantly the project cost. The proposed location before you today allows us to provide a significant property improvement while minimizing the project budget by choosing the flattest portion on our property near the existing concrete driveway. In Deer Valley Estates, we're fortunate to live in a subdivision that allows for other external garages due to the size of the lots, and we're simply seeking a reasonable, conforming economic use of our land. In addition, I want to ensure to the board that this project is meant to provide a solution without posing a concern to the other neighbors. We've been in contact with the majority of our neighbors, and those have confirmed support to us. In addition, we'll match the siding color, the windows and doors design, and shingles to match the house itself, and it will maintain the architectural structure to fit seamlessly on the lot. Thank you for your time, your dedication to the community, and your consideration.

Thank you. Could you please put the site plan up? Lay it out there, please. Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry, you mentioned the gas company. Where would that be located on the property?

It'd be in this general area.

Okay. It's running across that backside of the property? Yes.

Other comments from the board?

Why do you feel like this is the best location? I know you mentioned a couple things earlier. I'd like you to just reiterate a little bit more about that.

Yeah, I'll start. But it is the flattest location on our property. We live on an extreme hill, actually. It's very, very steep. It's a good sled riding hill, but not a good hill to build structures. So this is actually the flattest portion that we could really reasonably build it. And it would be right near the already existing garage. So it would just flow seamlessly

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone in the audience tonight with any comments regarding this? Okay. You're welcome to come up, please, to the podium. Excuse me. Okay. Can we get your name, please, and address?

My name is Lori Brown, 223 Hunter Hills Drive, Clinton, 44216.

And what's your relationship to this project?

I'm one of the neighbors that has been contacted regarding the variance request. Regarding from the Board of Zoning Appeals, I received it. I first would like to say that I've never confirmed support. I did listen to the neighbors describe Regarding the variance, but I never confirmed support And I have submitted documentation to zoning regarding that I strongly opposed the variance and The variance will lower property values. The variance depreciates the property values. The variance will set a precedent. The variance takes away from the neighborhood. The variance is bad for the character of the development and aesthetics of development. The variance ruins the neighborhood. The variance would ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Please do not allow the variance. Please keep the neighborhood aesthetically clean. Again, please do not ruin the neighborhood. The variance will set a precedent for the neighborhood. Please do not permit an accessory structure to be located in the front yard. Accessory structures are only permitted in the rear yard. And I have submitted that and called into zoning as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have one more comment from the public.

Any name for the record, please?

Second appearance, Jeffrey Pritt. Yeah, just wanted to say we're their direct neighbor in terms of across the driveway. We are in support of it. It's kind of hard to describe from a top-down view of this, but if you were on site on the property, it is hard to imagine any other location on the property where any other garage-type structure could be built between the gas accommodations, between the heavily sloped nature of it. While it may not be intuitive for every property in the neighborhood, looking at the parcel of land, I couldn't identify another place you could put a structure like such on the property. So it's one of the states that we have no issue of it as their direct across the driveway, I suppose, neighbor.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We had also received another anonymous letter regarding concern in granting the variance also, so.

Would you like to speak on comments?

There's a lot of other garages. I mean, you know that are in the neighborhood, but it you know, we think that this would be the best location for it and Yeah, that's Okay any other comments on the board Okay at this time I'd like to put the variance up for a motion I

It can be one or two parts together or separate. Two parts.

Oh, okay. I'll lead us off. I'd like to make a motion to approve a 24-foot front setback variance to permit a residential accessory to be constructed which would leave a 26-foot front setback where a 50-foot setback is required. Also, I'd like to approve variance to permit an accessory structure to be located in the front yard where accessory structures are only permitted in the rear yard.

Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Do we have a second on that motion?

I'll second the motion.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Alvadalla. Okay, so we received the motion and a second. Could we have a roll call, please?

Mr. Schultz?

Yes.

Mr. Alvadalla? Yes.

I'm just struggling with this one, but yes.

Mr. Spate?

No. Okay. With that, the variance does not pass at this time. So I'd like to reconsider, lay out other options, please.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm a business. We have the meeting minutes on Thursday, April 16th. I have to abstain.

As long as you read them, you can vote.

Did you read them? You read them. Cliff notes. Yeah, so I can say yes. Correct. Approve? Yes. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Any other business for tonight? Do we have next meeting?

Next meeting is June 18th, and so far we have four or five. June 18th, okay.