Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals meeting for August 24, 2026 is called to order at 5.30. Lynn, please call the roll.

Mr. Allen?

Here.

Mr. Patz? Here. Mr. Brown?

Here.

Mr. Griffith?

Here.

Mr. Kanzler?

Here. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Move.

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.

At this time, anyone that will be speaking this evening is asked to stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under the penalty of perjury, so help God?

I do.

Yes. And I believe we have no unfinished business tonight. We will move on to new business. We have three items on the agenda today. The first item is... development variance 260009. Development variances are requested at 9801 Chamberlain Road for construction of a residential accessory structure. Will the applicant please come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record, and describe the nature of your request.

Nathan Duke, 9801 Chamberlain Road, Windsor Pile, 44087. We're looking to build an accessory structure to park larger vehicles in that require a door height greater than 13 feet, so a 14-foot door.

I'll now open this case to public comment. Is there anyone present that would like to speak for or against this request? Come on up to the podium. And state your name and address for the record.

Hi. Oh, it is, yeah. It is, yeah.

Are you kidding me?

Good evening. My name is Shannon Smith. I live at 9789 Chamberlain Road in Twinsburg, and this is my husband Dan. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak tonight. We live directly beside the property in question in the proposed detached garage that will be positioned parallel to our property line, meaning that we will be looking at the long side of the structure from our property. We are here to respectfully, sorry, oppose all three variances being requested for this proposed structure. We are not opposed to our neighbors having a garage, and we understand that they want to use their property. Our concern is the size, scale, and placement of this particular structure and the impact it will have on our home and property. I think it is especially important that the board consider this from our perspective because the rendering we were shown when I contacted someone and they sent us the plans and the picture, it does not show what we will see from our property. We have provided a picture of the proposed plan that I was given, and our part of the driveway and a small portion of our house is at the bottom of the plan labeled Smith, and the proposed structure will be on the other side of our property line. The side of the proposed detached garage facing our property is approximately 62 feet wide and 24 feet high, with only 30 feet between the structure and our property line. We have provided AI rendering showing the view from the backyard of our home in those images. The top half shows our current view, and the bottom half shows what that view could possibly or will look like with the proposed structure, and you can see there is a vast difference. The view of our front yard will also be affected. 30 feet may sound like a substantial setback until you consider what is being placed 30 feet away, a 24-foot tall building with a 62-foot wide side facing our home, and the structure continues with additional sections making the overall footprint extremely large. So our view will not be of the front of a typical residential garage. We will primarily be looking at the side of a very large building. It will become a dominant part of the scenery from our property and from multiple rooms and bedrooms in our home. There is also no other residence on Chamberlain Road with a garage comparable to this size and scale. Living on Chamberlain Road, we do not have an HOA, so there are no private neighborhood restrictions that provide additional protection for our neighboring homeowners. We rely on the city's zoning regulations and this board to maintain reasonable standards between properties. That makes it especially important to us that the zoning requirements are upheld. We are also concerned about more than just the proposed use today. A structure this large will remain on the property for many years, potentially through changes in ownership or use. We cannot know what that building may eventually be used for, and we are particularly concerned about the potential for increased noise and activity in the future. We contacted the realtor who sold us our home in 2023. I gave her the plans. She looked at the proposed plans and said, that's not a garage, that's a factory. That's huge. She also said it's an eyesore. Sorry, I know those are strong words, but they help put our concerns into perspective because we're very concerned. We asked if the proposed detached garage will affect our property value. She said it will have an impact on those values given the change of scenery from residential wooded to commercial industrial look. This isn't simply about us not liking the appearance of a neighbor's garage. It is about the extraordinary scale of the structure in relation to the residential properties surrounding it. We respect our neighbors and their right to use their property, of course. But we also believe that our property and our reasonable enjoyment of our home deserve consideration. We are asking the board to look beyond the front rendering and consider what this will actually look like from our home, the scale of the structure being placed 30 feet from our property line, and the long-term impact of granting these variances. For those reasons, we respectfully ask that you deny all three variances, and thank you for hearing our concerns.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

None.

We'll move on to board discussion. Anyone have any questions or thoughts for the applicant?

I have a question for the applicant. My name is Rick Patz. You have a camper, correct, that you want to store inside? Correct. But I see you've got two doors in this lawn that I've got here. Am I missing something there? You're going to have to come up to the microphone. I'm sorry.

The right side door is for camper storage, and then the left side door is for other vehicles, but just for ease of access having two large doors.

They're both 14 foot high? Correct, both 14 foot high.

And then how big is your camper? Mine is 36 feet.

Nine by 36?

It's, yeah, nine by 36. Okay. With plans for larger.

We don't have a lot of space left in that building.

Well, with plans for larger and the tow vehicle parked in front. You're going to have to speak into the microphone. With plans for a larger RV with the tow vehicle parked in front for storage.

I just kind of feel it's overkill right now, that's all. But that doesn't, you haven't got that listed in any of your documentation that you're going to upgrade. Oh, okay. Okay, that's my question for now. Okay. Just the two garage doors, a little bit concerning to me.

How high are those garage doors?

14 feet.

They're 14 feet tall.

Is there another man door or another overhead door that's going to be in there anywhere?

There is a man door on the left side of the building.

Those are the only two overhead doors you have?

Correct.

Okay. And this is bigger than what your house is? And I read your documentation that you've got documentation that you could be 19, you could show us documentation where your house is 1,900 square feet. Correct. But this is 2,450 square feet?

Roughly, yeah. Finished square footage on the inside is just under 2,400 of finished concrete floor space.

Is there going to be an upstairs in there?

No.

So I'm done with it. Thank you.

Okay. So then just as far as the height is concerned, you said there's no upstairs. So the interior height, I think you said about 16 feet?

Just, yeah, 16 feet, 6 inches.

Then is the height of the building, is it necessary for it to be as tall as the length? Can that be brought down?

With the garage door going up, you need the space for the openers, and it would need to be that high for clearance.

Okay. Okay, then as far as the depth of the building being about 60, 62 feet, you said your RV is 36 feet?

Roughly 36, and the tow vehicle in front roughly about 15 to 20.

Okay, so it's a vehicle that would be towed by?

The vehicle would be towing the RV, yes.

Okay, that's why you're looking for the 60 feet is to house both RV and the attached vehicle.

Correct.

Okay. I have another question. Do you have any plans on landscaping on the side towards your neighbors?

Yes.

That's not listed in here.

No, I didn't get that far with the planning, but the plan is to run down the side where it's going to be exposed is run down the side with either a mulch bed or gravel bed with arborvitae or some sort of foundation coverage, low-level plant down the side.

Got quite a thicket between the two of you right now anyways.

Correct.

Except in the fall.

Yeah, except in the fall. Right now it's pretty grown up. Okay.

I have a question. It's Tom Brown. Is there another location on your lot? I know you have a pole barn back there. However, if you moved it back behind... Okay, yeah, it would constitute putting in another driveway, but that's a heck of a lot better to look at than this building.

The problem with going in the back is the way the elevation goes. It drops real far, and that is wet back there from as soon as it thaws to middle of July. I can't mow sections of the ditch back there. So having access back there with a vehicle of that size and weight, you wouldn't be able to get back to it.

Have you considered the effect of the value on your neighbor's property for these two high doors and building?

I have. I figured it would bring the value up considering what's across the street and next door to me on the other side. with a building that's I haven't gotten I haven't evaluated anything but the house across street you can't see from the road because it's all overgrown and there's a barn next door to me with a hole in the roof I haven't across the street

I'm talking about what's across the street. I'm talking about the effect of the value of these doors, that building, on your neighbor's property.

I have not gone that far. With the stone front facade and the vinyl siding, it would look residential. And the doors have windows in them. It's not a commercial building.

I have a question, Mr. Chair. You've said that the tow vehicle, you'd like to park it in the same bay as the RV?

Correct.

But do you have to? Can't the truck or whatever you'll tow it with be in the other bay? I mean, is that length the depth of the building?

Well, there would be other storage in the other bay and other vehicles as well. I have a couple classic cars that I would park over there just to keep out of the weather.

It's sounding to me like the height's an issue, but the larger issue for your neighbor is the very deep length of the building. And so when you request the variance, you're asked to request the minimum that allows you to do what you need to do. And it sounds like your primary concern is for parking the RV, and that's the reason for the tall overhead door and the height of the building.

Correct.

You have an attached garage. You have a pole barn to store things. Another observation here is this is a four-acre lot, so this is a really big residential lot. But what I also hear him saying is most of the lot isn't available for use for an accessory building of this nature. So while he has a four-acre lot, he doesn't really have a configuration that supports minimizing the scale of the building. Does that make sense? Because it has to be up front. He's saying the garage really needs to be located at the – at the setback distance of the house, which is the setback distance of the neighboring house. So while there's a whole big lot to theoretically support the building, it doesn't really because of the topography of the site. So with that in mind, you're kind of getting the best of the lot area in terms of supporting this size. but you're not getting any kind of mitigation of it because it has to be up front by the house.

I guess my question would be, why detached? Why not attach it to the house? I thought that would look a lot worse, honestly. But I almost think that takes away one variance.

It does take away a variance, but the aesthetics of it... For your house, you think aesthetically putting a...

24 high building 60 foot long looks bad on your house, but how does you know what I mean by putting it closer to their house? That's what I think where we're coming at from so I think I'll just say it straight up like we got to get it shorter and we got to get moved closer to the To the building.

That's kind of where I stand. Mr. Griffith. That's exactly how I feel about it I at this particular point in time. There's so many questions. Yeah Okay, moving it moving it around to the back closer to the house. I conforming that, would that do anything topographically as far as the softness of the ground and things of that nature? We need more information on this, and as I see it right now, I'm not willing to.

I'm not either. I think it's an acidic disaster to the adjoining house.

I agree with you. I agree with you guys. I mean, I visited it today. Spent a lot of time looking at it from the road. And I can't see any way that your neighbors would be protected from a building that size.

Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd like to make a motion.

You can kind of see where the board's heading on this. So what I want to give you is, is there a way to come back with something that's minimal to the variances that we need? So location, height, size. Is there a way that you can rework this plan and bring something that we could consider improving?

I think I could shrink it down lengthwise by about 10 feet, maybe a little bit more. Width-wise, I would still need for storage access for storage purposes. Height-wise, anything shorter, I wouldn't be able to get into and use it for what I need. But if joining it to the house, if that's on the board, I can have those plans drawn up too.

My major concern is the aesthetic effect it's going to have on the joining neighbor's home. And that home was there first. These two high doors, the height of it as compared to the existing house next door, it's too much of an intrusion to me.

So if you went with one garage door, one entranceway there and put it in the center, you could lower the height a little bit, right?

Maybe a little bit, just in the truss height, but the wall height would still be the same at about 16 feet from, it would be about 18 feet from ground to the eaves.

I'm trying to look for a solution for you is what I'm trying to do.

Yeah, I know. I've thought about many solutions on how to make this work and

For me, looking at, you know, you have a brand new house built across the street, correct? Correct. Three-story house, I would assume. It's beautiful. Yeah. I don't know. I'm trying to say, you know, they just have a double garage. But to me, and again, I'm not saying that I'm 100% agreement that attaching it to your house is the solution either. But I think to me, seeing some different variations of how that attaches, how that looks... You know, I see what you gave us. You gave us another covered porch. Is there a man... So the man door is on the front, and is there a man door on the side? Just on the side. Just on the side?

There's a window on the front.

There's windows on the front? Okay. Yeah. I guess in your drawing, to me, it looked like that was the man door.

The rendering done by Chet GPT... It has? Okay. It was very hard to do, and it took a lot to get it to there.

Yeah. And again, I think... Again, the cost of this building, I'm sure, is substantial. And again, attaching it to your house, I would assume. But to me, I think I need to see something similar to that. Yeah, and again, we're asking for three variances to me. When we can decrease the variances is always the best for us. There's substantial variances.

And look, I'm still hung up on back behind the house. Yeah. Okay, you can leave it detached if you want. But how far back does that gradient drop off from the house?

I walked it today, and from the backside of that building, if I were to push it back behind the house, it drops almost 10 to 15 feet in the length of that building. It does drop relatively quick. How about sideways? Sideways. Sideways? There's no other sideways to go towards the... To put the building sideways?

Yeah, so you'd be looking at the side of the building when you looked out of your house. Turning it around.

The shorter side would be parallel to their lot line.

Towards their... I don't think it would fit. I don't think I would be able to get into it with a vehicle of that size. Yeah, that'd be my... Well, I'll...

I'll come back to my original comment, if that's okay, Mr. Chairman.

Go ahead. I'd like to make a motion that we table these particular requests for variances until we get complete plans of a structure that can reduce the amount of variances and aesthetically help your neighbors.

I'll second the motion. Okay.

I'm just catching up here. Sorry.

Do you need a second on that?

Ed seconded it. Mr. Brown?

Yes.

Mr. Chancellor? Yes. Mr. Allen?

Yes.

Mr. Patz? Yes.

Mr. Griffith? Yes.

I'm sure it was approved. Table this until you're able to come back with more robust plans that hopefully minimize the variances.

Okay.

Now we will move on to our second case for today. It is case number 260008 for development variance request at 9278 Liberty Road for a 50-foot setback due to an 80-foot wide gas station restriction. Will the applicant please come to the podium?

I got an email late in the day today. This applicant asked for this request to be postponed. I didn't hear back from her, but it looks like they're not going to make it to the hearing. Okay. Yeah, I would. Yeah, let's make a motion to table it so they're available.

I move to table this case over the next meeting. Second.

Mr. Allen?

Yes.

Mr. Kanzler? Yes. Mr. Patz?

Yes.

Mr. Brown? Yes. Mr. Griffith? Yes.

The motion is approved. Now we will move on to our third case for tonight. That is case number 260010 for development variance request at 2368 and 2398 East Enterprise. Please state your name and address for the record and describe the nature of your request.

Thank you, members of the board. My name is Chad Rothschild. I'm here today on behalf of Metallic Resources and the property owner, CSC Realty. We own the property at 2368. This is an existing industrial structure. We own to the west, it's a vacant parcel that may or may not be listed on the agenda. To the east, we purchased the property that's 2398 East Enterprise back in May of 2025 out of auction. At this time, we're looking to expand our operation off of 2368. And as we were going through the process with our contractor, with our architect, in reviewing the zoning code, we realized there's a 100-foot setback from building up against a residential adjacent property. And then likewise for parking, it is a 50-foot setback. What's unique about the location of the property is if you look to the east of 2398, that's Great Day Improvement. That's also zoned industrial, you know, innovation manufacturing. And then to the west of the vacant lot is the building formerly owned by Caltech. That's also, you know, in the IM zone. Those carry with it a different setback. Those are the traditional, I believe, 50 foot for building and... whatever it is all we're requesting is that the setbacks be commensurate with the properties to the east and west of us and we do not believe we believe it would be aesthetically pleasing uh there's a lot of woodland in the back uh you know to the rear of the residential property same as there is with great day improvement from the street you would not be able to notice um and some other notes here um So it wouldn't change the essential character of the area. There'd be no adverse effect to governmental services such as fire access, sewer, water, trash service. We made sure to take into account that you would have an access road that can go all the way around the parcels. So there'd be good ingress, egress for emergency vehicles. You know, we believe that's, you know, the spirit and intent of the zoning code would be upheld through the request. So with that, we respectfully request issuance of the variances requested. Happy to answer any questions.

First, I will open this case up to public comment. Is there anyone present who would like to speak for or against this request? Any correspondence?

No, I got no correspondence from anyone regarding this project.

Thank you.

I can say, though, in addition to what the applicant has presented, the city adopted that additional setback in 2024 when we adopted the zoning code. The reason the other properties are at 50 feet is because we changed the setback dimension two years ago.

Okay.

Seeing none, we will move on to board discussion.

I have no questions.

No questions here. I move that we approve the appeal as requested. May I have a second? Second. Roll call, please.

Who beat? I'm going to give that to Tom. Okay. Mr. Allen?

Yes.

Mr. Brown? Yes. Mr. Patz? Yes. Mr. Griffith?

Yes.

Mr. Chancellor?

Yes. Motion is approved.

Thank you, members of the board and planning. You're welcome. Council member, we really appreciate it. Thank you.

Can I just say something?

Sure.

I had an opportunity to tour the facility last week, so thank you very much for showing me around. But it's really a staple of our community, our business community, of what's happening. And I appreciate the environmental concerns that you guys have taken into effort with what you're doing. AND JUST TAKING THE TIME TO WALK ME AROUND AND GIVE ME A TOUR OF THE NEW LAYOUT AND WHAT YOU'LL BE EXPANDING. IT'S PRETTY COOL IN THERE TO SEE THE ITEMS BEING MELTED DOWN AND TO BE ABLE TO HOLD. I JOKE WITH NICOLE, IT'S LIKE HOLDING A GOLD BAR. BUT IT WAS VERY FUN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR MEETING. Seeing none, I move to approve our meeting minutes from June 29, 2026. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Roll call, please.

Mr. Allen? Yes. Mr. Griffith? Yes. Mr. Patz? Yes. Mr. Brown? Yes. Mr. Kanzler?

Yes. The minutes are approved. Do we have any communications or other business assessments?

No. It's looking like we probably will have a meeting next month. I have a couple applicants that are working on projects, and I'm going to guess that the ones that we tabled could be back. So I would just say we should plan on having our meeting in September.

Okay. And he has to have that in by when, the 11th or something?

Yes, that sounds right. The second week of September. So yeah, he may not make it, but I think there's somebody on Jody Lynn Lane had a minor variance request. I suggested they could just take foot off the building. I don't know whether they'll do that. So there's a couple other applicants floating around out there. We'll see.

Any other communication council? Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved. The meeting is adjourned.