Zoning & Building Standards Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

board to order. Um, let's start with a roll call. Mr. Zelinger here. Mr. Stalker here. Mr. McGinness here. Mr. Lamuel here. Miss Binger here. All right. Um, all five members are present. So, we have a form. Um, we'll start. Next item is minutes for consideration. We were provided the January 2nd, 2025 meeting minutes for approval. Um, so with if there's no discussion, I'll entertain a motion in a second to approve those minutes. So moved. Second. Okay, I'll call the role, please. Miss Cleavinger? Yes. Mr. Lamuel? Yes. Mr. McGinness? Yes. Mr. Stalker? Yes. Mr. Zinger? Yes. Minutes are approved. Uh, next item of business are is uh the variances. We have one variance request uh on the agenda this evening. So go ahead and read out the for the record the variance request for this application ZVOA-25-1 Andrew Pratt 604 Everhard Road Southwest a variance requesting a reduced corner sideyard setback as required by NC 1133.05 for a new garage structure to be placed 20 ft from the Stamon Avenue Southwest property line. All right. Thank you. Um so what we'll do is um well I'll how this works is to approve or do any motion it takes a vote of three uh members all of us are present so the the three is a majority um what'll happen is it doesn't this is going to be a complicated situation but I'll have people speak in who are in favor of the variance speak first then anyone who's here to speak against it can go next. Um, I tend to ask a lot of questions. Uh, some of the other members might as well uh during the presenting.

It's just kind of how I've been trained. It's how I get information. Uh, so with that said, um, I'll let whoever is speaking in favor of the variance to go ahead and stand at the podium and you can start by um, giving your name and your address. Uh, we this is being recorded. Uh so uh make sure you just speak clearly and avoid um hand gestures or uh uh or nodding in response to any questions. Thank you. Noted. Okay. Hi everybody. My name is McKenzie Murphy. I am appearing as attorney or councel of record for Andy Andrew Pratt. He is applicant for the variance. Um, I guess do I do you just kind of want the reasoning behind the application of the variance or how would you like me to Yeah, we've we got your brief today. Yes. Um, I was able to read through it. I I think we we know we've got the variance application information and everything. Um, yes. So, I would just hit the high points, I guess, on what what what what's being sought and and then if we have questions, we'll ask. Sure. I want to note I think it's important background information that the application for the code being applied for the variance does not match the code in the brief or that was listed on the agenda. Um there was a misunderstanding of some kind of the code number or section that was provided to the applicant. So he based his brief on the code number that he was provided. Um, and when I was digging into it, after I saw the code that was listed on the agenda, I realized that it was he was given the wrong code section. So, if you have discrepancies between the application and the brief, that is why

um there might be some information in the application that doesn't apply to the matter at hand because it's quoted from the wrong section. So, the the the the code section we're here on is 113305, correct? DB, right? Correct. Yep. And this is an R70 zoned property. Correct. So, and then that mean it's a family a single family home. Okay. And then the setback is 40 ft and what's being asked is for a variance of 20 ft. 20 feet. Correct. Okay. So, um, with that background information, I just wanted that to be clear so that you're following and maybe if you get confused with the application, I'm mostly going to be referring to the brief because I wrote it. So, um I guess some of the high points that I have pointed out here come directly from North Canton Ordinance Code. Um we have a unique circumstance of this lot. It is a little bit over an acre. It's an extremely narrow lot. Uh we have an acre that is situated with the house in the front yard and it's pretty close to Everheart. Um, and then we have a majority of the yard in the back, but we are on a corner lot. So, the corner lot is treated or the corner side yard is treated as a front yard, which is why we need the the 40 foot um from the lot line setback. So, we have an existing garage and an existing driveway that comes out of the back of the home. The variance is being requested to add an a an additional garage as an accessory building um within 20 ft instead of the 40 so that it is able to coincide with the existing driveway and be closer to the existing garage so that we have

a more concise layout when it comes to storage of vehicles etc. Um, additionally, we have um we could place the building in the rear yard. However, like I explained earlier, because of the narrowness of the lot, it would be significantly further away from the home and the existing garage. So getting utilities transferred such as sewage, water, electricity would be more difficult, more costly because of the location of the year rear yard that the accessory structure would have to be placed on. Um also with the 40ft setback, if we were to to comply with that, it places the accessory building directly behind where the family resides in the dwelling. So all of the windows and um portion or view of the front yard would be obstructed by the accessory building. I got one question about the the width of this lot is 150 ft. Mhm. Right. If you had to move that garage 20 ft to the left of of in the picture we're looking at, right? It wouldn't be in the center. You'd still have be able to see back there, wouldn't you? So the house I believe is 24 or 26 feet back. So we'd be just a little under double that for the accessory garage if it were to be at the 40 foot setback. So I don't know if that helps with the visual. Like if I my math may be off. So you got 150 foot frontage here or width of the lot, 30 foot width of the garage. You're you're 20t off the road. So you're 50 feet into the property if you get your variance granted. You're 70 feet in. If you you're just another 20t in if you go to 40 off the road. You're still like not centered in

there. You're there's still room to see into the backyard. You're not totally blocking the backyard, I guess, is my point, right? No, I I agree with you. It wouldn't be a total obstruction. Um, it just would align with the existing garage and the driveway in a way that would make it extremely more convenient and cost effective to be able to utilize the driveway and the utilities and the garage um on the 20 foot setback rather than the 40. And like I said before, if we, you know, chose to do the rear yard instead of applying for the variance, we are then so much further away from the building that it it just almost makes the the use of the building moot in my opinion. Yeah. That I mean, I can see why you wouldn't want to do that, right? Um, but just, you know, moving the garage over 20 feet to the left and having to add a little concrete to the driveway. I don't understand how the argument that you couldn't do that and be like, now that's a major inconvenience or impractical somehow because that's what we got to look at when we're giving variances. Um, when we're giving variances, we got to it's got to be a really special situation almost impractical. to not have the variance. Very unique. Now, so that's why that's why I'm like moving it 20 feet to the left. You're still going to be able to see back there. Maybe not quite as well, but that's, you know, that's having a yard with an accessory structure. You're that's what happens when you have an accessory structure in a yard, right? Yeah. Now, the one thing I question I've got is this this other property across the street. This 336 Ever Hard Road. Okay. Um that I have I'm wondering about um that is and I guess the survey Gundy is is that in the city of North Canton that

property? Um it is that's actually attached as an exhibit from the auditor site. It is zoned North Canton. Okay. So, uh Mr. Mr. Vundy, what do we know about that uh property? Why in that garage? Because I don't recall request or approving a variance for that. I don't believe there is a variance. Yeah, I believe it was approved. I can confirm there is no variance on that. That came in at a time where the city did not have a building official. I was coming on right about the time that was approved. I don't know the exact date. Um, I did look at that one. Uh, the applicant had brought that up in in the review of this and as I had indicated to him that I wasn't comfortable with the code as it read um, acknowledging that and I did acknowledge to him there was no variance on that that um, you know, I I certainly wouldn't have made that call today on that. of course we're here today. I felt he needed the variance to make sure that his property rights were protected moving forward um on that and I mean I could surmise how they came to that conclusion um but I don't know. Okay. So but there's no there's nothing distinguishing about that property versus this one. They're what they're asking for here is basically a similar thing to what they've got there, right? It is. It's it's very similar. In fact, I had indicated to the the applicant that, you know, I would like to approve it the way in fact staff does not have any objection to the request here on this, but given it did not align with the

zoning code that um you know, the ordinance didn't grant me the authority to issue that approval. Okay. Um, and I looked at it a couple different ways. The zoning code does allow, you know, for the infill lots. It does allow us to draw a line between the existing structures. This still wouldn't comply with that. So, um, with that, we went ahead and revert it for your consideration today. I I appreciate it. Um, other question I've got for, um, for you, Miss um, Mrs. Murphy is you put in your brief about the dow interest of Mr. Pratt. Mr. Pratt does not own this property. Correct. Correct. I actually brought a grant of authority that was executed by the wife. Okay. If that would be helpful. Yeah. Just I want to make I'm sure the record's clear. Jenna Pratt Jen NA is the property owner. Correct. She is his wife and she supports this request. She fully supports it. I just met with her and their two children today. Okay. Good. Good. That's I just want to make sure of that. um because I understand dower and all that but I we want to make sure the um the property owners is behind this request also. Okay. Correct. Anybody else have any other questions or Okay. Do you need anything further from me? Um I not at this time though. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do you want the copy of the grant of authority? Yeah, we probably should have that for the record were able to get. Yeah, absolutely. Um, anybody else want to speak in favor of this request? Anybody want to speak opposed to the request? If not, um, any discussion among members of the board? I'm in I'm inclined to support the

request in light of the fact that there we have a similar situation in 336 Everhard that is there it looks like an apples to apples comparison to me. I don't like treating people differently. Um there's nothing distinguishing about that property versus this one. So based on that and the fact that the city and the staff of the city do not object to this um I'm inclined to support this um request. I don't think anybody else has any thoughts or anything. Well, I guess I have a question. Does the city have a remedy on 336 the other the other property? We don't um if the property owner does seek to have at this point it is a non-conforming. It is legal because the city did issue a permit for that. The inspections took place. The final inspection was completed on that. So, it currently has a status of a non-conforming use on there. So, unfortunately, at this point, if there was a catastrophic loss, they would not be able to rebuild that. Uh, they would have to come before this board and seek the same variance to rebuild. Um but at this point because it was issued a permit and inspections took place then uh it will remain as a non-conforming. Sure. So as it says it's legal, right? Okay. All right. So I think that's important to my mind that's important for for this. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything else? I mean because of that I would be in I would be in line to to approve as well. Inclined to approve. Yeah. Okay. Um on based on that I'll enter a motion. I I make a motion that we um grant the

variance. I'll second it and we just call the role. Mr. McInness? Yes. Mr. Lamuel? Yes. Miss Clevener? Yes. Mr. Stalker? Yes. Mr. Zinger? Yes. Okay. The variance is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Do you need me here any further? Uh, I don't think so. No, we're good. Thanks. Thank you all so much. Um, if there's no further business to come before the board, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So, move do it by voice. All those in favor say I. I.