The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 2011 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock,Sr., Ken Blair (sitting for Glen Quigley) and Chris Yeacker (sitting for Tezeon Wong) present. Ms. Endres distributed photos of the site for board review.
All in attendance for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ray Fidel read the applicants request:
William J. Dutine Jr. requests an area variance to construct a 24 ft. x 40 ft. accessory building 36 ft. from the Auburn Rd. right of way at 15805 Auburn Rd. in the R-1 district (vs. Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. setback from the road right of way).
Mr. Fidel asked the applicant to state his case. Mr. Dutine showed the requested placement of his accessory building on the Access Geauga site plan.
Mr. Fidel said he had visited the site and measured 87’6” for the setback from the road right of way (ROW) and suggested reorienting the structure 90 degrees for a setback of 63’6” from the ROW. He described the rear lot that drops off sharply and also contains the septic leach field making it unsuitable for any additional structure. He said the side yard setback might be reduced to 28 ft. vs. 30 ft. required; taking actual measurements is complicated by the angle of Auburn Rd, and the angled side lot lines. Mr. Dutine said his fence is at 29 ft. - one ft. inside the lot line.
Mr. Fidel then asked if the board had any questions. Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked for clarification of the survey map where two adjacent lots are marked as Phillips owned. The lot to the north is owned by Patricia Phillips; the lot north of hers is owned by Phillips & Patrica Paradise – two different owners.
Mr. Blair said they did a good job on reorienting the building. Ms. Brezina agreed the front site was the only viable location. Mr. Yeacker said the rotated building will look better than the original requested placement.
Mr. Fidel then asked Mr. Dutine if he was willing to amend his application to rotate the building so the 24 ft. is east/west and the 40 ft. is north/south and situated 63’6” from the Auburn Rd. ROW & 28 ft. from the south side line. Mr. Dutine said he agreed to amend his application for the rotated building placement shown on the revised site map that he signed and dated.
There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variances.
Chris Yeacker moved to accept the variances for the amended rotated building site plan as requested; Ken Blair seconded the motion
A roll-call vote was as follows:
Chris Yeacker yes
Mary Lee Brezina yes
Ken Blair yes
Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes
Ray Fidel yes
Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his variance requests were granted.
Mr. Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.
Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:10 p.m.
As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.
Board members resumed their meeting to establish the conclusions of fact:
Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS for the revised variances requested:
1) The parcel could yield a reasonable return without the variance but allows for needed storage in a new accessory building.
2) The variance is substantial but reasonable considering the restrictive rear lot topography.
3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and the adjoining property owners would suffer no detriment as a result of this variance.
4) The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.
5) The property owner was unaware of the zoning restrictions at the time of purchase.
6) The owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than the variance to meet front & side setback requirements.
7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable; the building will enhance the property and there were no adjacent property owners in attendance to object.
Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Tue, June 14, 2011
by Ann Wishart