Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting of Hudson's Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Ms. Rodak, would you please call the roll?

Mr. Scott? Here. Mr. Jones?

Here.

Mr. Dyer? Mr. Carl?

Here.

Chair Bronstein?

Here. Thank you. We are going to move on to swearing in of staff and audience that they believe will be addressing the board. Please go ahead. Oh, sorry. We need to identify staff before we swear them in. That would make sense, right? First, I will identify Mary Rodak, who's our associate planner. We have Nick Sugar here, who is our city planner. We also have, and I apologize, I still haven't written down, Chris Thomas, who is our city solicitor. And we also have in the audience, Samantha Diorama, who is our city council representative. Now at this time, I would like to swear in staff and audience that we'll be addressing the board tonight. Can you stand and please raise your right hand and affirm the following. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you will provide is the truth? Thank you. All right. Moving on to approval of minutes. We have our minutes for BZBA, our June 18th minutes. And I believe, Mr. Scott, did you have edits to those? Or has everybody had a chance to review them?

Ms. Rodak provided an updated copy. Okay. So I think that would be what we would be voting on.

Yes. Does everybody have, have they had a chance to review the updated copy?

I abstain.

Okay. Uh-oh. Are we able to, if we have two abstaining and we have two, okay, all right, then we will move the approval of the minutes from our June meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting.

Just a question for staff. Does that impact anything that you're doing with the decisions that were made in that meeting by not having minutes approved?

No, the decisions have already gone out.

Okay, great. Okay, just want to make sure there's no impact.

All right, thank you. Okay, now we will move on to our new business tonight. And starting out with new business, our public hearings, our first public hearing tonight is case number BZBA 26-816. The subject of this hearing is a variance request of 10 feet from the required minimum lot width of 200 feet resulting in a lot width of 190 feet pursuant to section 1205.05D4A entitled property development design standards lot width of the city of Hudson land development code in order to complete a lot split to build two single family residences. The applicant is Chris Brown of 778 Macaulay Road, Suite 140, Stowe, Ohio, 44224. The property owner is GVI LLC, 410 Dunwoody Drive, Aurora, Ohio, 44202. For the property at 549 West Streetsboro Street in District 2, Rural Residential Conservation within the city, of Hudson. Ms. Rodak, may I have the staff report, please?

Yes. This property is located in District 2, approximately 5.2 acres. If the variance were approved, the lots would be split into approximately 2.5 acres each. This variance, if approved, would be applicable for a lot labeled S-1 on the survey site plan. The applicant is requesting minimum lot width variance of 10 feet from the required 200 minimum lot width requirement. Staff notes that the LDC stipulates the minimum lot width requirement is taken at the building front setback line. In District 2, the minimum front yard setback is 100 feet on all lots fronting arterial roads, which West Street, Sparrow Street is identified in our code as an arterial street. At the June 18th BZBA meeting, the applicant was here to present to the board two variances to construct a new home and driveway. One variance from the required 50-foot setback, wetland setback, and a variance from the code section of prohibited activity within the wetlands. The applicant withdrew the application in that meeting in order to explore different lot configurations. Staff, Mr. Sugar talked with the applicant about different lot shapes and adjusted that lot configuration to allow for a curve in the driveway. Staff notes the proposed lot would not create a flag lot, which is part of the intent of our LDC. Additionally, Hudson Public Power determined the proposed driveway would need to maintain eight feet of clearance from the electric transformer and have protective bollards installed to protect the infrastructure. The proposed driveway is approximately 11 feet from that electric transformer. Additionally, staff notes that the proposed project will no longer be impacting the wetland setback, and the applicant is here for any questions the board may have.

Wonderful. Would the applicant please step up to the podium and state your name and address and present your case, please? You look familiar.

Good evening, my name is Chris Brown. I represent GVI LLC and we are located at 778 McCauley Road in Stowe. As Mary had mentioned, I was at the last meeting and we were requesting a variance of 14 feet for the ability to put a driveway in our second lot to the right there, lot number S2. And after a long consideration, our long discussion, I think the board was on board with moving the property lines a little bit. So I can stay out of the riparian setback, which I worked with Nick and we came up with this solution. However, one variance led to another variance because at 100 feet setback, we only have about 190.5 feet. Feet at our building line. Well LDC says you're supposed to have 200 However, we can get 200 feet if we set the house back at 135 feet so at this point we're just asking for a variance of 10 feet or So we can curve the driveway around the riparian setback of the wetlands, as it was suggested at the last meeting. As Mary had mentioned, we did meet, or I did meet with Hudson Power, talked to Dave Griffin. He was concerned because of the location of the switch box up front along 303. He goes, stay as far away from that. He suggested eight feet. I think we are close to 11 feet away from it now. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I'm going to go ahead and start with Mr. Scott. If you have any questions, since you were here also at our last meeting.

Sure. Um, so my, my question for staff, um, I noticed in, on, in the staff report, there was a, um, uh, uh, I think the initial proposal on page seven, uh, a proposed, uh, uh, lot split. And so that, that's not what we're discussing tonight, right? Because that, that, Or is it what's been modified?

So it would still be a lot split. This line has been reconfigured. So it would be a variance of the minimum lot width. I think what Mr. Scott is referencing.

That was the original for context. OK. Got it. Got it. Yeah. Thank you. To see where we've before and after.

Yeah. OK. Thank you. So that was my first question. So we can kind of disregard that one a little bit. But it's good for context, of course. And then my next question for staff is on the interpretation of code for where you measure the lot width. Because I see, it looks like three on page eight of the report, I see three different kind of lot width measurements. One that looks like closest to the street, another one at the 100 foot building line, and another one at 135. What, what is the code? Enforcement for that?

Which line? You've always interpreted it at the minimum setback line, which is 100 feet in this case. Okay. All right. So to avoid that flag lot issue. So if someone just arbitrarily moves it back on 300 feet, you have a flag a lot, you can have homes stacked on top of each other, which is something our code discourages.

So that's why it's for 10 feet. Yeah. That makes sense. And I think that was all I had. Let me check my notes real quick. Yep, that's all I had.

Thank you. All right. Mr. Jones, do you have any questions for the applicant? Yes.

Yes. I appreciate that you all have provided the list of adjacent property owners. And I understand that the requested variance is sort of contained within this lot. It's not going to affect any of the adjacent property owners. But I'm curious if there's been any outreach to the adjacent property owners, if there's been any concerns about the request before us tonight.

I have received no comments. Actually, my neighbor, Mr. Pappas, is sitting beside me over there. So I haven't received any comments, complaints, or suggestions from any neighboring properties.

Thank you. That was the only question I had.

Thank you. Mr. Carl, do you have any questions?

Yeah, just one. It's a lot. It's a single lot now. Mm-hmm.

Correct, 5.2 acres.

What do you have to do to get it split?

I'm sorry?

That's an administrative staff review, and then it will be recorded at the Summit County Recorder's office. No, not for a minor. This is called a minor lot split. If you're splitting three or more lots, it's a major subdivision, which is what we did to the east to create the cottages at Pine Ridge, but this isn't considered a minor subdivision. This was actually referenced in that development, so that has been in front of the public.

So I noticed the picture just before this one seems to be a... It seems to show a lot that's split in half and each one is exactly 200 feet wide, right?

Correct, yes.

Split, I assume that the lot that you now have is a 400 foot wide lot, is that right?

Correct.

And so the line that was drawn on this drawing was at 200 feet for each lot. Correct. Okay. And the only reason that you're here tonight is on the next picture.

We had to move it.

Drive by a little bit to the left to avoid a waterfall.

Well, according to the land development code, there's wetlands which have been identified, and then on top of that, there's a 50-foot buffer, and we had to stay out of that 50-foot buffer. buffer yard with any improvements.

Okay, so those red dots, that's the 50-foot line?

Correct.

Okay, all right. So really the only reason that we have this need for a variance is to avoid the water problem?

Yes.

Okay. And if we don't grant this variance, then let this plan go south.

There's other options. We could go and address the core, submit a permit application to fill part of the wetlands, which would reduce the 50 foot setback. But I would rather leave it the way it is.

All right, those are the only questions I have.

Wonderful. And what I was going to say for myself is I actually don't have any questions. I feel like what has been provided tonight answered all of the concerns that we had posed last month. And I think that this, in my opinion, is a better solution than the solution of getting a variance to intrude on that 50 foot setback of the wetlands. So I don't have any questions for the applicant. I'm going to then open this up. I apologize. I had one. Okay. Mr. Scott, go ahead. No worries.

In your application, I see in the staff packet on page six, you were asked to list any special circumstances, particularly the property or lot, and you indicated no special circumstances. I just wanted to give you a chance on the record to to comment on that because it does, at least from my perspective, look like there might be some special circumstances, that being that there's, as Mr. Carl mentioned, the water and the wetland impact.

Yeah, actually the special circumstance would be we're trying to follow the LDC, the Land Development Code, to honor the 50-foot buffer yard. which I think that was kind of the main consensus at the last meeting.

Okay. So you do have a special circumstance on this. Got it. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Scott. And so now we're going to move on, if it's okay, to open it up to other members of the public if they want to make a comment. So I'm going to open it up if anybody, any individuals withstanding In the audience, if they want to provide comment, now is your opportunity. If not, are there any other individuals who would like to make a comment? Seeing none, I will give you an opportunity if you want to provide any final comments and then I'm gonna close the public part of this meeting.

I just wanted to say I really appreciated that at the first meeting, instead of outright saying no, some circumstances and some options were given, that I could explore those. So I really appreciate that opportunity.

Thank you. And with that, I'm going to close the open meeting part of this, the public part of this open meeting. Can't get my words straight tonight. And want to open it up to members of the board if they have any comments. And also if there is anybody who's willing to make a motion.

I would like to make a comment. I noticed there were two problems with his presentation. One of them. asks whether the variance is substantial and he said that it is because it's not 200 feet that's not what substantial is about substantial is how far off the 200 feet are you gonna be and this one is a five percent off and so i think that's in substantial so i don't want the record to show that you have given up on substantiality because this is an insubstantial variance as far as I'm concerned. The second thing is, in your written presentation, you said there are no special circumstances, but just a few minutes ago, we went through the fact that This water issue, which to me is a special circumstance. That's not gonna come up with anybody else's lots except yours. So I think that's the exceptional circumstance that would enable us to grant a variance.

The board members have comments they would like to make or is anybody prepared to make a motion?

I can make a motion. So this is docket number 2026-816 for property at 549 West Street Borough Street. parcel number 3010419. The applicant, Chris Brown, on behalf of the owner, GVI LLC, is here this evening to ask for a variance of 10 feet from the required minimum lot width of 200 feet, resulting in a lot width of approximately 190 feet at the building line pursuant to section 1205.05D4A in order to complete a lot split for two single-family residents. Going through the Duncan factors one will whether or not the property will yield a reasonable return and there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance it will yield a reasonable return the property has full beneficial uses of single 5 acre lot lot so factor one does not support the request. Second whether the variance is substantial it is not it is under 5% and the 10 feet is transferred between the 2 lots and not lost. 3 whether the substantial character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or joining properties would suffer a substantial detriment know the bent lot line is an interior line visible from the street, you don't have a flag lot and there's no opposition. 4 whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. No, the electric transformer clearance is addressed by by the applicant and their proposal. 5 whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement. Yes, the LDC was in place in 2025. Six, whether the applicant's predicament can easily or feasibly be obviated through some other method other than a variance. It cannot. We tested those alternatives in June, and the 10 feet is the least deviation that affords relief. Six, whether the spirit and intent behind the requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Yes, the lot width rule exists to prevent flag lots and this doesn't create one. And so the deviation exists solely to keep the driveway out of the 50 foot wetland setback. And finally an exceptional and unusual condition exists that's not coming to other properties similarly situated the partial is squeezed between a category 2 wetland complex and an existing pond so it's no straight line to let split can satisfy both requirements for these reasons I moved to grant the variance as requested.

Second.

All right. Ms. Rodak, would you? Sorry, who seconded? He did. Okay. All right. Ms. Rodak, can you please call the roll?

Yes. Mr. Scott? Yes. Mr. Jones?

Yes.

Mr. Dyer? Mr. Carl?

Yes.

Chair Bronstein?

Yes. All right.

Congratulations. You got your variance.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Okay, moving on to our next hearing tonight, we have in front of us case number BZBA 26-38. The subject of this hearing is a request for four variances in order to fill approximately 293 square feet of wetlands. for the construction of a driveway in a new home. The variances are, number one, a variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance within stream corridors, wetlands, and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03C entitled prohibited activities of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. Number two, a variance from prohibited activity that would disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy, or alter any area, including vegetation within a wetland, as delineated or would be delineated by the procedures of this section, pursuant to Section 1207.03d1, entitled Compliance with Applicable Federal Wetlands Laws or Regulations of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. Number three, a variance of 27 feet from the required 30-foot stream corridor setback resulting in a three-foot setback pursuant to Section 1207.03E1D entitled Wetland Stream Corridor Protection Stream Corridor Setbacks. the city of hudson land development code and number four a variance of 50 feet from the required 50 foot wetland setback resulting in a setback of zero feet from the delineated edge of the wetlands pursuant to section 1207.03 e2 entitled setbacks wetlands of the city of hudson land development code the applicant is matthew neff of 6803 Chaffee Court, Brecksville, Ohio, 44141. The property owner is Bechtik Capital Holdings, LLC, 5079 Akron Cleveland Road, Peninsula, Ohio, 44264 for the property at 1957 Norton Road in District 1 with suburban residential neighborhood within the city of Hudson. Ms. Rodak, can we have the case report please?

Yes, this property is located in District 1, situated on Norton Road. The lot is approximately 5.9 acres and purchased in 2025. A single-family house was previously located on the property and demolished in approximately 1997. As Ms. Bronstein said, there are four variances for this case, one requesting a variance of 27 feet from the required 30-foot stream corridor setback, and the other... The applicant is requesting to fill approximately 293 square feet of the wetland in order to construct a driveway and new home. Staff notes, due to multiple wetlands and streams on the property, it would be difficult for the property to yield a reasonable return without any variance. Staff questions the category of the wetlands on the property as identification would help aid in determining what are the impacts on these wetlands and their setbacks. The proposed home has a footprint of approximately 3,350 square feet. The square footage of the proposed home could be minimized to reduce any impact on the wetland or stream corridor, or the turnaround of the driveway could also be revised. The applicant is here for any questions, or they would need to be sworn in as they came in after that part of the section.

Yes, thank you. With the applicant, and because all of you were not here when we did the swearing in, how about we just go ahead and we do another swearing in right now. If anybody has entered and expects they're going to be providing testimony tonight, can you raise your right hand? And please raise your hand from the following. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you will provide is the truth? Thank you. All right, would the applicant please step up to the podium and present your case, and please state your name and address for the record.

Hi there, I'm Matthew Neff from MNEF Consultants, and I'm a civil engineer and land surveyor, and I'm the applicant for Zamir Bechtik, owner of the property here.

And hi, my name is Ben Latouille with HCW Environmental Consultants, 6105 Hysley Road, Mentor, Ohio. And as this pertains a lot to wetland setbacks, I'm up here with Matt.

Thank you. All right, please present your case for us.

Well, this is a site on the north side of Norton Road, nearly six acres. It is impacted with the streams and the wetlands. And if we are not able to get these very minor variances, the lot would become unbuildable. And he's been, Zamir has been spending lots of time and effort in designing is having his home designed in redesigning it to meet the Hudson standards and we feel that the impacts to the wetland stream corridors are minimal to the extent that we can build this house and driveway the 293 square feet of wetland fill proposed is at 0.06 of an acre and the Army Corps allows us to go up to 0.1 of an acre when we're doing our fills without an impact or having to go to a land bank. So we feel that these are very reasonable requests that we're asking for for this property. And we're here to answer any and all of your questions.

And hi, this is Ben again. I just want to clarify that uh so we have delineated the property and we have an application ready to go to the army corps um for approval because we also will need their approval to impact these wetlands um but we certainly wanted to make sure we had a plan that was approved by hudson before we got the army corps involved so um you know as matt was saying uh we hope we fully expect this uh to be covered under the nationwide permit 29 for residential developments And one of the terms of that permit is that any impacts under 10th and acre do not require compensatory mitigation.

I guess we'll move on to questions. I will start with Mr. Carl. Do you have any questions for the applicants?

Yeah. This is the first time that I have a request for a variance where the neighbors on both sides of the property in question have objected to it. It's very difficult for me to think about granting a variance here when the neighbors don't want it. The purpose of a zoning law is primarily, in my view, is to protect the neighbors. And so I'm very worried about that. So maybe you could speak to that problem because you have a problem with me right now unless you can convince me that the neighbors don't have a reasonable view of this thing.

My point there would be that Number one, the neighbors don't own this property. It is not their property. If they really are objecting to this and they don't want Mr. Bechtik to build this home, they should buy the property then. Because I think that these requests are very reasonable.

The neighbors do not own the property. No they don't. But the neighbors are entitled to the zoning laws to be enforced. That's the purpose of zoning laws.

I understand that. And we're requesting appropriate and reasonable decisions to be made on this. And this property, if these variances aren't granted, the property becomes unbuildable. Basically, it's like the taking of your land.

I'd like to interject there. I don't typically ask questions first, but I think this is the right time to ask it. With a variance, it's the job of the applicant to explain to us why a variance is needed, why an exception to zoning law is needed. And you have stated that there would be no beneficial use but for a variance to be provided. There's four separate variances here tonight that have to all have a finding of being all convinced. We have to be convinced on all four of them. And you have said that there would be no beneficial use to the property but for these variances. I'd like additional information from the applicants tonight explaining exactly why there's no other way to build on this property but for these variances. Because I think that there is beneficial use without these variances. But I'd like some information so you can convince me otherwise.

Well, when you... a piece of property you want to build a home for yourself and your family you know you you have personal requirements i mean you could build a very small home there and that you know that would be smaller than what he's proposing but uh that's that's not you know what he and his family would like and are requiring you know they've already made several changes by moving the house changing the architecture and and doing a lot of things that the city has asked them to do to meet these requirements so um and then they've they've they've changed quite a bit But what they want and what they would like to have on a piece of property they bought- They bought knowing the restrictions on the property. I don't know if they knew the restrictions.

They have beneficial notice because when you buy a property, you are expected under the law to understand the restrictions on the property. they had beneficial notice of the zoning regulations when they bought it because they bought it in 2025 and these zoning regulations were in fact under our zoning code in 2025. i'm not disputing that i'm just saying i don't know if the purchaser

Zamir Bechtik was aware or did the research of the zoning code to figure out if there was an impact or not.

Excuse me, I'd just like to interject a quick point here. If I'm correct, and this might be the wrong term for it, but the preamble of the wetland and riparian setback ordinance talks about maintaining proper floodways and ecological diversity. And I'd just like to highlight the fact that since this project is expected to fall fully, under a nationwide permit program and not have not have to be required to provide compensatory mitigation. It can be assumed that the army course opinion on the matter is that it's a very, um, what's the word? And infinitesimal is not the word I'm looking for, but minimal, a very minimal impact to the, to the ecology of the lot of the greater Hudson area. So I would think that that aspect of the preamble or explanation of the riparian codes would be satisfied because this is not a large take.

So two points to that. The first is that there has been no categorization of that wetland that which for every other variance that we've reviewed we had that information to help evaluate the impact so it's a little premature from our perspective to be able to make a determination on impact as staff indicated in their report and I'm sure communicated to you that is something that will help inform us and making that determination The second point I'd like to make, also I'm going to stick just to the ecological aspect of it right now, is that Hudson Land Development Code for variances states in 1204.03 that no variance shall be granted if doing so will have the potential to reduce the level of ecological integrity from the existing level to a lesser level as shown in any of the individual metrics or undeveloped composites that set forth in Appendix B to this code. And you saw in the staff report that there was an IEI rating of that parcel in I believe it was the 10 to 10 range. And so as a result, while you are quoting Army Corps of Engineers and the national law there, there is local ordinance that requires that you provide mitigation in order to prevent a degradation in the ecological integrity of the property, none of which is provided in your proposal now. So I'm concerned that this application is incomplete from that perspective, that we can't make a determination either by judgment, which is on the categorization of the wetland, if it's Category 1, 2, or the like, and because you have provided no mitigation as required by our statute, we can't make an appropriate evaluation.

I just want to point out about this Army Corps of Engineers issue. we are independent of the Army Corps of Engineers. We have to make our own judgments based on our own statute. And the Army Corps of Engineers does not control how we interpret our ordinance. It seems to me that it would be better for you to have the Army Corps of Engineers you came to us because that would make it easier for us to consider your argument but right now we don't have we don't have the evidence necessary to decide that this isn't going to have an effect on the wetlands. I drove that property and I see what the issue is. There's a dip between your neighbor to the east and the one to the west. The property goes down. It clearly looks to me like an area that takes the water. And one of the letters that we got from your neighbor pointed that out. And so I'm really worried about that. I mean, if the Army Corps of Engineers came in and said, well, it's fine not to have a 30-foot setback and all that, maybe we could reconsider. But I just don't think this record is going to support four variances.

Mr. Scott, do you have any other questions?

So the... Wanted to talk a little bit about the size and placement of the house that was removed polish Because that's one of the other challenges I see what this proposal is is that Miss Rodak the I believe the one of the aerials showed the original house was on the east side of the property and And so if we were trying to kind of restore things back, if you will, to the way that they were before the house was demolished, this type of proposal where we could lean towards being amenable to a variance In this case, this is not attempting to do that. It's attempting to build in a different area. And my guess is they put it on the east side to be a little bit more cognizant of the impact of the water. Also, comparative size. Were we able to get the size of that property?

I didn't have anything on record. If we do a quick measurement based off of GIS, it's about 2,200 square feet.

OK. So the previous property that was built there is significantly less. than what is being proposed. So we recognize that there are limitations, but I think what we're seeing is there's no, right now, there's insufficient proposal from the applicant to obviate those or ameliorate.

Are those your only questions, Mr. Scott? Mr. Jones, do you have any questions for the applicants?

I have questions. They might be for staff or the applicant. Ms. Rodak, could we go back to the picture of the previous residents? Was that in the staff report? Did I miss that?

No. Okay. Chair Bronstein asked me earlier today.

Great. If you zoom out, Just because I have, I guess, I don't have the best spatial awareness. Where is the proposed house in relation to where the previous house was?

Yeah, so this house, according to GIS, which is an estimation, was about 300 feet from the front property line. The proposed house is on its western side and is about 193 feet. So it's going to be closer to the road on the western side.

Okay, and if I'm understanding that picture correctly, the previous house did not have a driveway all the way to Norton? Did it look like they had an easement to the neighboring driveway?

It's going to be the same driveway that the applicant is proposing to use. It curls around right here.

There's actually a bridge, too, that's existing. It crosses the stream.

Okay.

Okay. And then this question is definitely for the applicant. One of the concerns that the neighbors have raised is stormwater management and flood mitigation. Have you all conducted a stormwater study that would indicate... where the runoff would go if the variants were approved and the proposed structure was built?

The runoff is going to go to the existing stream that runs through the lot.

Has there been a study? We did not do a detailed study. Would the applicant be open to doing a detailed study to assuage the concerns of the neighboring property?

We could do that if necessary, yes.

Let me check my notes, see if I have anything else.

Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? Like to raise? Okay. I have a couple of questions, but they might be for staff. So going back to the lovely old report that we've now seen a couple of times, the 1996 IEI report, Can you explain a little bit the rating that we have for that 1996 IEI report?

That is, I'll just pull it up on here. 10 to 13, which is the second highest score.

What does the highest score mean?

That is the highest ecological quality of an area.

So it has high value.

There's a number of factors used to determine that. Habitat quality, species diversity, wetlands, hydrology, water quality, all those are put into a number. They're essentially site-specific, but as we mentioned, that study was done quite a while ago, but we have a site-specific wetland study and water resource study now that... that there are these types of things on the property, these types of resources.

Which is it? Does a higher score mean it's worse for the environment, or is it a lower score that's worse for the environment?

The higher score means it has more ecological integrity. So it's better. This site would have more impact if it is disturbed. That's what that means. The ecological integrity would have more impact if this site were disturbed. That's what this rating is saying is second highest of that category.

I have some questions for the applicant. Why was the location for the house chosen? I know you mentioned a little bit that there was some placement of the house that had to do with the city of Hudson, so that's one of my questions. And then I have some questions about the driveway and decisions on that and openness to potentially changing those to minimize impact.

Well, the driveway location was chosen to use the existing gravel location. So we felt that there was going to be no negative impact if we use the same gravel drive the uh homeowner proposed homeowner did not want to uh cross the creek they didn't want to use the the existing culvert there to get on the other side to have a dwelling back there they wanted to stay on this side of the creek i think if we cross the creek i think there might be more potential impacts

And going back to the discussion of beneficial use, is there anywhere else on the property? And this is a question both for the applicant and then also for the staff that has developed a land that isn't, that would have, or it would have a less would have, I don't know how to say this less of an impact on the wetlands. Is there any part of the parcel that would be accessible?

It would be very difficult to get any kind of a buildable lot past this since there is wetlands right in the front of this lot off to the side that they are proposing to fill. And then as you go back towards the lot, there's another wetland back here. So crossing it is not ideal. Moving forward towards a lot towards the north property line or the south property line is better to zoom out a little bit.

So down OK so show me where there's less wetland.

This location would be as you move closer towards the North front property line there would be less impact OK so this location is.

What event but if you were to move farther down you're saying there's less. Of an impact so closer to the the set the the bottom property line.

No, I'm sorry. Taking the lot as a whole, crossing over the bridge like how the previous house was, you get closer to another wetland in addition to 1A and B. So this, by moving closer, I just meant this current location as you move closer towards the front.

Are there any other locations farther down on the, sorry, because I'm trying to interpret this. lower below the house, is there anywhere else that's developable? Or would have less of an impact on the wetland?

It would still be within this 50-foot setback. In the riparian setback? Yep. So this is the 50-foot setback, wetland setback. And then we have a 50-foot riparian setback as well. So moving it closer would still be in the wetland setback and this riparian setback as well.

The location of the proposed dwelling is in the widest part of the lot between the property line and the wetlands and the riparian corridors on the south side of the stream crossing.

So there's four different variances going on here. I think I need information on what exactly, what part of the development is requiring each one of these variances. I don't know if Ms. Rodak, you're able to provide that, or Mr. Sugar, or if the applicant should do that.

If I may. Sure. At least two of them are interrelated. If we're asking for a variance to impact the wetland, that's going to move we're obviously impacting it for a reason but that wetland is say it's pulled back 10 feet then the 50 foot buffer of wetlands is going to restart where our impact ends so by nature you need at least two do you have a sure i'm just wondering what part of the actual development needs these if you can show me which variances are associated with which part of the development

So this part of the staff report talks about this stream corridor. So this red line here is the limits of disturbance. Anything within this blue section would be part of that stream corridor variance.

So that's number two, right? And would that also be number one? So that's number one and two? Okay, so this blue area, which looks like it's labeled storage, is for variances one and two. And then what are the next two for?

This figure two of the staff report is the actual fill of the wetlands. So this part of the driveway and any grading would be included in wetland fill and then wetland setback as it.

So that's for the driveway.

Yes, and it would include any kind of grading as well.

And grading? Any disturbance at all, correct.

So including grading. Okay.

Can you explain, so going back to the driveway, can you explain what options were looked at with the driveway and why this happened? specific section that's highlighted in yellow here, or lime green, I should say, is needed? Why that grading and the driveway is needed there versus putting it elsewhere?

There were several different options prior. But due to the redesign of the dwelling and rotating the house and moving the garage from the back to the front facing the street, the impacts were altered. I don't remember exactly what the impacts were prior to rotating the house as required and moving the garage to the front from the back, but I know that they did impact the setbacks differently.

Okay. Is there any specific reason why the drive, because I... there's, it looks like a turnaround and an extra spot here, which is what, sorry, maybe I need to use a microphone so I can describe what I'm actually pointing at, instead of pointing at my own. Thank you, no problem, go ahead. Hopefully this will be easier. So I'm looking right here at this area and I'm trying to figure out why this is needed.

Well, let me ask you.

So this is the driveway right here.

That's the driveway and we're 200 feet off Norton Road. Yeah. I don't know how far back your house is off the street, but I don't think you'd want to drive in reverse.

Got it. But why wouldn't we put it right here?

Well, I guess they could, but it's like. So they could. It's possible, but they want to keep the front of the house.

So we're going to fill wetlands so that they can have a pretty driveway. Got it.

A pretty driveway and a pretty front yard landscaped appropriately.

Why couldn't they have a turnaround right here?

I think you could turn anywhere on that side of the driveway. But you still it's still going to be less convenient pulling out of the garage and turning around.

I also see on here that says install silt fence. So would there still be any disturbance aside from the I'm assuming that the driveway that there's some groundwork that's needed for that. But is there any other disturbance that be relative to the variance. the third and fourth variants.

So the wetland is just to show what this highlighted section is to show what is being filled in. Anything within this 50-foot wetland setback is still... Yeah, so this is the infill of the wetland.

This is still within the setback.

This is still within the setback.

Got it. Those are two different variances. One's for being in the setback, one's for filling wetland.

Yeah, any kind of disturbance in that we've had to prohibit activities and then we have the filling the wetland setback.

OK, so number number two is actually was highlighted in green is the fill is the fill. OK, so so that's that's the what's there. Number one is basically the price of admission. Essentially, if you do any of two, three or four, you have to give them a variance for one.

Correct.

Okay. And so then number three is, um, it's just the entire property or is it a particular part of the property?

That is the stream corridor. Number three for this blue highlighted section, the 30 foot.

So if they, if they redesigned or didn't have that storage component, then they would not need number three.

It is also for any kind of grading. So it would still be grading within right here, right here as well.

So the great, but to say that would impact the grading by itself would impact the setback for number three months.

For number three catches the corner of the house. Yes.

Yeah, but we're saying if we remove that storage, so take storage out.

Okay.

Yeah. For number three, 1207.03, all buildings, accessory structures, and then parking lots, grading, and clearing. Shall we set back?

So you're saying that even if they took out the storage, just like if it was a bunch of Legos and you took that storage out, you would still need grading and they would still need a variance. Correct. Got it. Okay.

I mean, it may pull back a little bit, but that red line is the limits of disturbance.

And the and then the variance for. Is. It's just the entire property, or is that what what's triggering for?

Go back here. So four is this dashed line right cutting through the storage, through the garage.

So it's basically the whole thing.

It would be, you know, this garage section, this driveway section as well, would be within the wetland setback. The 50-foot wetland setback.

So it's to the right of the dotted line.

Yes. 52. 52? Yeah. Yeah. It's the wetland in the stream. Maybe that helps. Those setbacks are pulled right off of those boundaries. So, okay.

So the proposed is kind of in between the green and the blue right now?

Yeah, this is where the proposed house is.

Okay.

Okay. Are there any other questions? I have another question. Okay.

If we go to figure one, this is a different something I've never seen. What is it?

If if I understood the conversation that we just had, you might need to zoom in a little bit more. If the entire proposed structure was to. The left of the setback line. On it goes through the storage and the garage What variances do we need if the entire structure is to the left of that diagonal?

We need that red line out of everything. What is the red line? The red line is their limits of disturbance. That would be their grading, clearing. That is what the code goes by, not structure specifically.

So the red line, if you've got rid of that, the red line would move, but it wouldn't move likely.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just for clarity, to highlight kind of the difficulty to design on this one, there is another dashed line. And that is the 50 foot buffer from the wetland to the north. So not only would it have to be left of the first line we're talking about, it would also have to be south of that line. So like a triangle, if you will.

And how is the red line determined?

That would be determined by the applicant's grading plan.

Gotcha. Yeah.

So if they need to get machinery over on that side to grade it, that is a line you don't cross, essentially.

It's a disturbance. Yeah. It's difficult to build a house in that. You need extra room. Go outside the footprint of the dwelling. Pretty much impossible. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Mr. Carl, do you have any other questions? No. Okay. Thank you. We are going to, let me see. Well, we should give you, let me see. going to open it up to any individuals with standing is anybody with standing like would like to speak make a comment seeing none uh they were mentioned but maybe we should just mention that the two letters were from individuals oh that's a good point yes sorry so we we do we did receive this is just for the record i'm not going to read them into the record but we did receive two letters both from um members of the public who have standing and both of them um were opposed to granting the variances, and both wanted us to consider water quality protection and stormwater, and one wanted a stormwater study specifically done. Okay, moving on to outside of individuals withstanding, is there anybody from the public who wishes to make a comment? Seeing none, does any board members have any final questions for the applicant at this point? Seeing none, do you have any final comments that you'd like to provide us or a closing statement based on the questions you received tonight?

I can go back and talk to the owner to see if any of these things he wants to modify or...

Are you asking by making that statement, I'm inferring, are you asking for there to be a postponement?

No, I really can't answer that. I'd have to.

Because if we move forward tonight, we're going to rule on the case. You can make a request to the board, which we can decide to either except vote on delaying. But Ms. Rodak? To continue. Yeah, to continue it. Ask to continue or withdraw this. We've done that before. We did that last month over wetlands.

I would suggest that this thing needs substantial work before it is presented. And the way we've done that in the past is we've asked the applicant if he would prefer to, Because when it comes back, it's not going to look like this, right? It's going to be a different set of circumstances. Because if you want us to vote on this set of circumstances, we can do that tonight. But if you lose, you can't come back. But if you withdraw and come back with a modification that meets these requirements, then we can vote on that.

The other option, aside from withdrawing, is to ask for a postponement. And then in the interim, you can also make a withdrawal during the delay, or you can have a modified submission as well, correct?

Yes, they can modify their position of the house.

But agreed, you have the option to withdraw or continue, sorry.

yeah and there's a little bit of discussion going on to that with the property owner um i just wanted to add for the record uh you know a comment was made about um the city of hudson's code and how they are independent and we respect that but please understand also that the army corps kind of has the same opinion you know they don't really give much mind to what cities want they kind of it's kind of it it's a challenge it can be a challenge uh also Would now be a time to ask questions?

Am I allowed to ask questions? How much have you closed the public?

We have not closed. I was about to close it. I was asking if you had any final comments or statements that you'd like to make. I think that that could include questions.

I guess, yeah, I just don't want to lose my opportunity. You know, it sounds like the city of Hudson really values stormwater protections and ecological value, you know, akin to the Army Corps program of when you fill some wetlands, sometimes you have to purchase compensatory mitigation. Would the city, has the city entertained kind of applicant-responsible on-site mitigation? For instance... let's say and there's a spot back where the house used to be in 97 that didn't quite grow back very well after they tore it down and also there's that bridge there that may or may not be used would the city entertain um you know doing any kind of action in those things to improve the environment as a counterweight to a grant of a variance is that even a thing

Yes, precedent actually does show that in our history. The mitigations are actually required. And they can range from, as you say, restoring components. Also putting in additional protections during construction and that process as well. It also can involve providing a conservation easement. to basically protect the rest of the environment on that parcel. So those are all things that you would potentially see.

There's also considerations for native vegetation buffers or utilizing sensitive erosion control techniques, but these are all things that can be considered to be a counterweight to any type of disturbance.

And I would add that the categorization is.

I was about to say that. That also factors into this. This is not our first wetland rodeo. And the categorization of the wetland is crucial for our understanding of what potential mitigation is necessary.

it if it helps in my opinion it's a two i know you don't have the paperwork there may have been some emails i was on vacation i apologize for that but um generally in ohio under the oram classification system it's a broad bell curve where many things are twos and only few things are one and few things are three so and this is a pretty typical wetland that you'd find in northeast ohio For what it's worth.

To give you some context, looking at our history of variances, they've all been on Category 1. So we've actually discussed and worked with applicants in the past to avoid impact to Category 2.

I just want to add that any mitigation that goes on has to be mitigation within the property. You don't get to build a sidewalk three miles away as mitigation. You have to do this property that helps with the problem that we're facing.

Any other questions? I'm sorry, can you speak into the microphone? It's just it's for the recording.

We talked to the owners and they would like to come back with a modified plan to address as many of these concerns that you have. Okay. So it sounds like it could be table.

So it sounds like there's a request for a continuance.

If it's helpful, I'd like to read some of the notes I've been hearing from the board. Maybe that just sure. Thank you And just jump in if these aren't the consensus But what I was seeing is reduce the size of house that would reduce the limits of disturbance and variance request remove all proposed fill within the wetlands provide mitigation measures pursuant to the review standards of 1204.03 provide a detailed wetland study including classifications provide detailed stormwater study and study moving the driveway turnaround to the west side.

Those were my... That sounds pretty comprehensive.

There was also, in your staff report, and I would support it, would be an inventory of tree impact was another one.

And just for when you're writing all of these things down, I think it's important to... These things, when you're looking at them, need to be explored. As we've seen here tonight, it sounds like there's going to be some impact. Our goal is to minimize that impact and to try to take logical steps to mitigate impacts. So it sounds like we have a request for continuance. I believe as a board we have to vote to agree to a continuance. So can I get a motion from a board member for continuance?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Ms. Rodak, would you call the roll on continuing this to the next regularly scheduled zoning board meeting?

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl?

Yes.

Chair Bronstein? Yes.

All right, so we have continued this till our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is the third Thursday, I believe that is. Let's look at the calendar. It is August 20th, so that gives you about a month to weigh the options and the things that we have put as our concerns. is there a uh deadline for submittal yeah i was going to say we would need sorry i i think this may likely go to two meetings we would need time to review all these all these reports do we need to update or is it do we need to update the continuance request because or is that no okay no okay so it sounds like this is based on what might need to be done and deadlines for submittals, it sounds like this is going to go in front of the board.

We can track through the next agenda and we could have a note. If someone from the public is following, they would be able to see on the agenda that this would need to go another month or what have you. Okay.

You know, it would be helpful to me to hear what the Army Corps of Engineers says and

So it sounds like this is something that's going to be on our September meeting, which would be, um, the third Thursday is September 17th. So hopefully that gives enough time for the, and what would the deadline for submittals be for the seven, the September meeting?

The calendar is the 17th realistically for us to review. Is that the stated deadline? We could probably flex another week.

Yeah.

Like the 27th? Yeah.

Okay. Yeah.

All right. Thank you, and we will see you at our September meeting.

Okay, have a nice evening.

Yes, you as well. All right, now we move on to the next part of our schedule, which it looks like we don't have any other business. And so I would like to ask Ms. Rodak what we have on our docket for next month.

We still have a week for a deadline. As of now, we have an appeal of an ARC board decision.

For our August meeting. Okay. Wonderful. With that, can I get a motion to adjourn?

I move we adjourn.

Can I get a second?

Second.

So moved. All right. Thank you.