City of Aurora BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES November 8, 2017 The Aurora Board of Zoning Appeals met in a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, in Council Chambers of Aurora City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Chairman Terese Fennell. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Also Present: Tom Carr, Alternate Terese Fennell Tony Gramm Jeff Iammarino Bernard McCarrell Tim Novotny Matt Vazzana, Legal Advisor Meredith Davis, Asst. Director, Planning, Zoning & Building Division Jack Burge, Director, Economic Development John Kudley, Councilman, At-Large James Vaca, Councilman, Ward One Corinne Craine, Clerk Mr. Vazzana swore in those in attendance who wished to speak this evening. RECONSIDERATION OF A PRIOR ACTION There were none. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: To accept the resident letters as supplemental information for application no. 1710017 for the property at 541 Cobblestone Road Mr. McCarrell moved; Mr. Iammarino seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. McCarrell, Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Carr, Mr. Gramm, Ms. Fennell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: To approve the meeting minutes of September 13, 2017, as submitted Mr. McCarrell moved; Ms. Fennell seconded, and the motion carried, 3-0-2, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell, Mr. Iammarino Abstentions: Mr. Carr, Mr. Gramm
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 To approve the meeting minutes of October 11, 2017, as submitted Mr. Carr moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0-1, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. Carr, Mr. Gramm, Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell Abstentions: Mr. Iammarino AGENDA ITEMS: Mary Ranallo, 951 Parker Road (1710016) Accessory Structure Square Footage Variance The property owner, Mary Ranallo, was present to discuss the application. She is proposing to construct a 40 x 68 pole barn at 951 Parker Road, which is in an R-1 residential district. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 1153.05(b)(2) to allow the 2,720 square foot barn where the code states that only 2,000 square feet is allowed on properties less than five acres. Ms. Ranallo explained that she and her husband compete in car races on the weekends and they own various racing cars, trailers, and a motor home. They intend to use this barn as a storage facility for all their racing equipment. They specifically need the 68-foot depth of the barn in order to accommodate their 35-foot motor home with an attached 20-foot enclosed car trailer. Ms. Ranallo spoke to her adjacent neighbors and they all wrote letters in support of her request. Ms. Fennell asked whether there was any way to stay within the required 2,000 square feet. Ms. Ranallo said that a smaller structure would not be large enough to hold all of their equipment which includes a motor home, three car trailers, golf cart, and several cars. They want to store everything inside a structure as a protection from the weather and for security reasons. Additionally, their property would be more aesthetically pleasing having everything stored in a building rather than stored in the open. She commented that the proposed barn would be located about 430 feet back from the road and would not be visible. Ms. Ranallo then submitted a photo to the members which showed some of her equipment. To accept the photo as supplemental information Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Carr seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr, Mr. Iammarino, Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell Ms, Fennell asked the members for further comments and there were none. She then opened the floor for public coments. James Vaca, Councilman, 1101 Moneta Avenue, spoke in support of the variance request. He thought it was better to have this type of equipment inside a building rather than out in the open. Mr. McCarrell and Mr. Iammarino both commented that the variance request was not substantial considering the location is in a rural area. They thought the barn was a good solution for storing all the vehicles and equipment. Mr. Gramm agreed and pointed out that the members received letters in support of this variance from the neighbors and there were no letters or comments in opposition. Mr. Carr said that the structure would not alter the character of the neighborhood.
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 3 Mr. Vazzana presented the resolution for the variance and the members voted on the request. To grant the variance request as submitted Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Iammarino seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Carr, Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell Mr. Carr suggested that agenda item 8c for 26 Chelmsford be discussed next because item 8b for 541 Cobblestone would be a longer discussion and the members all agreed to the change. To switch the order of discussion for agenda items 8b and 8c Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Iammarino, seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. Gramm, Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Carr, Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell Joseph Lewis, 26 Chelmsford Drive (1710018) To Allow a Solid Fence Abutting a Public Right-of-Way The contractor, Hank Portzer of the Northeast Ohio Fence Company, 14855 Broadway Avenue, Maple Heights, Ohio, was present for the discussion. The applicant lives at 26 Chelmsford Drive and his rear yard abuts the public right-of-way along Chillicothe Road. He is proposing to install a 4-foot high board-on-board fence in the rear yard in order to keep his dogs and grandchildren away from the traffic. Mr. Portzer pointed out that the proposed fence would match the neighbor s fence at 30 Chelmsford in order to provide continuity of materials and appearance. In order to install this type of fencing, the applicant is requesting a variance from Code Section 1153.05(e)(2)(A) which requires a fence to consist of at least 50% open space in a yard abutting a public right-of-way. Ms. Fennell asked whether the board-on-board fencing would affect the sight lines of drivers on Chillicothe. Mr. Portzer explained that the homeowners association had installed a vinyl split rail fence along the rear property line on Chillicothe and the proposed board-on-board fence would actually be about three feet inside the split rail fence and would not impact the sight lines. Mr. Carr pointed out that the staff report needed a correction so it reads that the proposed fence would not cause any safety issues. Ms. Davis agreed that the word not was left off by mistake and the report should be corrected. Mr. Gramm had visited the site and wanted to know the location of the fence in relation to the trees in the rear yard. Mr. Portzer said the fence would enclose the trees. Ms. Fennell thought that the variance request was not substantial and the fence would match his side yard fencing and also the neighbor s fencing. Mr. McCarrell agreed with the comments in the staff report and said that it would not affect the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Fennell asked for further questions or comments and there were none. Mr. Vazzana presented the resolution for the variance and the members voted on the request.
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 4 To grant the variance request as submitted Mr. McCarrell moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. McCarrell, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr, Mr. Iammarino, Ms. Fennell Michael Kilroy, 541 Cobblestone Road (1710017) Side Yard Setback Variance for Addition The applicant, Michael Kilroy, was present to answer questions. He had previously applied for two variances last year for a similar project which was classified as an accessory structure. For that project, BZA denied the square footage variance, but approved the side yard variance. Since that time, his needs have changed and he is now proposing to build an addition to his residence at 541 Cobblestone Road which is located in an R-3 district. He is seeking a ten-foot side yard variance from Section 1155.02 in order to construct the addition. Mr. Kilroy explained that his wife s elderly parents are planning to move in with his family and he needs to expand his residence. He is proposing a 1,346 square foot addition which includes a new breezeway and a four-car garage with a storage area on the second floor. Additionally, he intends to convert the existing two-car garage into a new master bedroom suite, renovate the old master bedroom, and expand the kitchen. Mr. Kilroy then submitted a color rendering of the proposed addition. To accept the rendering as supplemental information Mr. Gramm moved; Mr. Carr seconded, and the motion carried, 5-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr, Mr. Iammarino, Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell Mr. McCarrell commented that the rendering does not match his description of the project because it shows two garages. Mr. Kilroy explained that the rendering is not quite accurate because the existing garage would become a bedroom and have windows instead of garage doors. Ms. Fennell had some questions about the new garage. Mr. Kilroy stated that the garage would be a 24 x 48 garage with one 16-foot wide garage door. He intends to stack the cars with two cars in front and two in back. Ms. Fennell wanted to know why the addition could not be moved in order to comply with the 15-foot side setback requirement. Mr. Kilroy said that by moving the garage ten feet, the garage door would have to change into an eight-foot wide door which would make parking cars inside very difficult. Mr. Carr thought that the project could be re-designed in such a way that it would not require a variance. He said that the backyard had plenty of space to accommodate the addition. Ms. Fennell asked the members for further questions and there were none. She then opened the floor for public comments and asked the speakers to limit their comments to three minutes. She pointed out that the comments should be related to the variance request for the addition and not about a home-based business operation.
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 5 Dennis Ofiara, 409 Millpond Drive, lives adjacent to the applicant on the southern border and was opposed to the variance because the proposed garage would be too close to his property. He is currently building a garage addition and he was able to do it without a variance. Also, he collected 24 signatures from surrounding neighbors who all opposed the variance. Mark Sheridan, 521 Cobblestone Road, lives next door to the applicant. He thought that this proposed addition was really no different than last year s proposal. He was concerned about the size of the garage. He believed that it was too large and it would have a negative impact on property values. Russell Post, 429 Millpond Drive, was opposed to the variance request because the garage is too large and he did not want to be staring at an 18 x 48 wall in his backyard. John Wilson, 291 Corning Drive, Bratenahl, Ohio, introduced himself as the architect who designed Mr. Ofiara s addition. He believed that there was a better way to design Mr. Kilroy s addition and do it so it complies with the setback requirements. Mark Sheridan, 521 Cobblestone, Road, commented that the proposed garage would have a front-loading garage door instead a side-loading door and that is another reason for opposing the variance request. Ms. Fennell pointed out that BZA is just reviewing the setback variance. If the variance was granted tonight, then Mr. Kilroy would still have to get an approval from the Architectural Board of Review for the front-loading garage and, generally, they do not allow them. David Nicora, Yesterday Again, 7618 Colvin Road, Gates Mills, Ohio, stated that he was the general contractor for Mr. Ofiara s addition. He believed that the proposed addition could be reconfigured so it would comply with the city s setback regulations and with a design that is more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Kilroy wanted to address the public comments. He explained that different designs were reviewed before deciding on this one. He said that this was the only design that fits his needs and also retains the most amount of green space in the backyard. As far as the size of the garage is concerned, they need a 24 x 48 garage in order to fit their Suburban and Yukon vehicles plus the vehicles belonging to his in-laws. Ms. Fennell asked the applicant whether other designs were considered which would fit his needs and comply with the setback requirements. Mr. Kilroy stated that there were other designs that complied, but they greatly reduced the amount of green space in the backyard. He said that the amount of green space was an important factor in choosing the design. Mr. Carr thought that the real challenge for the applicant was balancing the need for additional space versus the desire for green space. Ms. Fennell expressed frustration because she believed that the applicant did not explore all possible options of an addition without a variance. She did not understand why this was the only design that would work. Mr. Gramm agreed with the staff report which stated that the applicant s predicament could be solved in another way without the variance. Mr. Iammarino also thought that the applicant didn t
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 6 need a variance. Mr. Carr thought that the variance was substantial because the addition is very large. Also, he heard the public comments tonight and the surrounding neighbors were all opposed to the variance. Mr. McCarrell agreed and thought that the homeowner could find another solution which would comply with the setbacks. Ms. Fennell thought that the applicant could either make the proposed garage smaller or move the addition to the rear yard. Either way, his predicament can be solved without a variance. Mr. Vazzana presented the resolution for the variance and the members voted on the request. To grant the variance request as submitted Mr. Iammarino moved; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion was defeated, 0-5, on a roll call vote. Yeas: None Nays: Mr. Iammarino, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Carr, Mr. McCarrell, Ms. Fennell Ms. Fennell noted that the variance had been denied and the applicant had a right to appeal the decision. She suggested that he contact the Planning, Zoning and Building Department for more information. MISCELLANEOUS: There was none. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Iammarino moved to adjourn at 7:42 p.m.; Mr. Gramm seconded, and the motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. Terese Fennell, Chairman Corinne Craine, Clerk