STREETSBORO BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

Note: These minutes were compiled by extracting certain facts the essence of testimony from an audiotape made of this meeting.
Complete detail and verbatim statements can be heard and transcribed from the tape. The tape is available in the office of the Department
of Planning and Zoning for a nominal fee.
STREETSBORO BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Hearing
May 21, 2013
7PM
Call to Order: Chairperson Mustafa brought the hearing to order at 7:06 pm.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call: Matt Bross, Tim Berecek, Jim Hillyer, Curt Newill, and Cindy Mustafa were
present.
Also present: John Cieszkowski, Planning and Zoning Director; Matthew Vazzana, Assistant
Law Director; Stacey Vadaj, Zoning Inspector and Interim Clerk.
Disposition of Minutes April 16, 2013 Hearing
Mrs. Mustafa asked since the minutes were not complete for a motion to table.
Motion: Mr. Bross
To table disposition of minutes for April 16, 2013. Seconded by Mr. Berecek. Upon
voice vote motion carried.
Old Business: none
Mrs. Mustafa explained the procedure for the hearing.
New Business:
8729 State Route 43 – Szabo
A. Request a variance from Sec. 1125.03 (a)(1) of the Zoning Code to allow a minimum
lot area per dwelling unit to be 1.87 acres where the code requires 2.0 acres. Variance
is for 0.13 acre.
B. Request a variance from Sec. 1125.03 (b)(1) to allow the minimum width at the
building setback line be 155 where the code requires 175. Variance is for 20 feet. The
property is zoned R-R.
[Throughout the hearing Mrs. Szabo repeated and explained items to Mr. Szabo because he
was hard of hearing and stated such during his swearing in. Those conversations were left
out of these minutes for clarity.]
Michael and Sandi Szabo 8755 State Route 43 were sworn in and Mr. Szabo explained they
were looking to sell one of the properties they owned on State Route 43 but they needed to
change the property line so Mr. Szabo could retain control of the entire lake that now was
split between the two parcels for safety and insurance reasons. He said having the lake on
two properties had insurance issues but his main reason was to protect the lake he grew up
on.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 1

Mrs. Szabo agreed.
Mr. Szabo stated the property had an aeration system for septic; he had a letter from Portage
County Health Department stating if the septic system failed it could be replaced in the exact
same location therefore it didn’t require additional land. The property at 8729 was denied for
a regular septic due to the slope so the county allowed the aeration system.
Mrs. Mustafa pointed out the letter in the packet from Loyd Groves dated April 3 for the
environmental health district regarding what Mr. Szabo just stated.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated his memo dated May 9, 2013 included his review comments as it
relates to this submitted application. He reviewed the memo with the board.
Mr. Vazzana echoed Mr. Cieszkowski in that the standard is a practical difficulty and there
are 8 factors outlined in the code that you can read and you are to balance. If they rise to the
level of a practical difficulty then you can go ahead and grant the variance. Finally, always
remember that the conditions that we balance with these factors, the things that trigger these
factors possibly are conditions that rise from the property itself, not the personal situation of
the property owner.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if the Duncan Rules apply to this hearing.
Mr. Vazzana stated the rules that apply to this hearing are the rules that are spelled out in our
code.
Mrs. Mustafa asked again if the Duncan Rules applied to this hearing.
Mr. Vazzana said no. You have the factors to weigh as you come to your decision and that,
as John pointed out in the memo, is 1105.12(c)4.
Mr. Newill asked about the applicants’ response to the first question on the application which
was yes.
Mr. Szabo said the answer should be no. He misread the question.
Mr. Newill asked if his reason why the variance was necessary was totally what the applicant
perceived to be a liability issue with the lake being part of both parcels instead of being totally
on the [north] parcel.
Mrs. Szabo answered yes a lot of it is.
Mr. Newill asked what brought them to this conclusion.
Mrs. Szabo said the buyer did not want to have anything to do with the lake and their
insurance was telling them it could be a liability so they were having issues with the insurance
on the property.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if there was a letter to that effect.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 2

Mrs. Szabo replied no but the buyer was at the hearing and would speak to that if the board
wanted her to.
Mr. Newill clarified this was not the buyer for Mrs. Szabo’s property but for the adjacent
property.
Mrs. Szabo affirmed they were the buyers for 8729 SR 43 which was the one for sale.
Mr. Newill said it was parcel 1 on this map.
Mrs. Szabo affirmed.
Mr. Szabo stated it was the southern parcel.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if the answer given for E was correct.
Mr. Szabo said that was wrong too.
Mrs. Mustafa thought they had addressed a lot of the questions but the board needed some
clarifications. She asked, since question C asked if the peculiar conditions were the result of
actions by the applicant, when and who split these lots.
Mrs. Szabo reported it was owned by Mr. Szabo’s parents and the lot was split when he
bought out his parents.
Mr. Szabo said it was split down the middle and when his father passed away his mother
gave him half the property which became lot a and b and he built his house on 8755. The
plan was he was to take care of his mother forever and it didn’t matter where the line was but
now she passed away.
Mr. Bross asked if the original split was where the existing property line was, the dotted line
was.
Mrs. Szabo affirmed.
Mrs. Mustafa asked they explain where the driveway was for the southern parcel because it
didn’t show.
Mr. Szabo stated the driveway was next to the lake all the way back, by the proposed
property line, it comes in at an angle; approximately 10 to 15 feet from the lake.
Mr. Bross asked Mr. Cieszkowski if R-R had a 2 acre minimum.
Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed for a property where sanitary sewer is available in the R-R district.
Mr. Bross asked if there was a new zoning classification coming for this parcel.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 3

Mr. Cieszkowski answered no there was not. The board was operating under the current
zoning map and under the current zoning map it was zoned R-R. He had pointed out earlier
that the zoning district referenced on the drawing was R-1 but should be R-R.
Mr. Bross agreed it was mislabeled.
Mr. Hillyer pointed out there were two variances being requested.
Mrs. Szabo said there was only one variance being requested.
Mr. Hillyer thought the request for the variance for the two acres could be resolved by giving
more land at the back of the property behind the lake.
Mr. Cieszkowski clarified there were two variances that would need to be secured in order to
move forward with the lot lines as they were shown. The first variance was from a minimum
lot area requirement, that minimum lot area was two acres. The applicants were requesting a
minimum lot area of 1.8749 acres. That was the first variance, the second variance was for
the lot width at the building setback line, the requirement was 175 and the drawings show
155 so they would need a 20 foot variance from that requirement also in order to move
forward with the proposed line as shown here.
Mr. Szabo asked if Mr. Cieszkowski meant the garage was closer to the setback
requirements.
Mr. Cieszkowski showed Mr. Szabo the lot width at the building setback line requirement. He
asked if the applicant had considered moving the lot line north to get the minimum 2 acres
that would be necessary.
Mr. Szabo did not want to do that because it would make the property for the new home
owner drainage go into the lake if the new owner altered it. He wanted to control the runoff
into the lake for safety reasons. He wanted to make it non buildable, keep it on his property
and not have anything built there so there would be no runoff into the lake. He said he was
concerned with the welfare of the water.
Mr. Cieszkowski asked if that was the reason for the variance.
Mrs. Szabo affirmed.
Mr. Hillyer understood.
Mr. Berecek didn’t see an actual practical difficulty, just that the applicant wanted control of
the lake. He pointed out proof of a practical difficulty was required and asked for clarification
because he didn’t think control of runoff into the lake was a practical difficulty.
Mr. Szabo said it was the insurance and responsibility for accidental drowning, responsibility
for EPA regulations for runoff into the lake; he didn’t want motor boats in the lake or anything
else in the lake because the lake was more than just a body of water to him because he dug
that lake when he was 6 years old. He wanted to be able to control the welfare of the lake.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 4

Mrs. Mustafa stated if the driveway is 10 feet from the water and there was a gas spill or oil
leak how would he be able to prevent that from going into the water.
Mr. Szabo said he could not control the unforeseen damage to the lake, there was a car that
almost went into the lake from SR 43 but he wanted to be able to control the things he could.
Mr. Newill thought if there was another alternative, which would be moving the line which
would still have the new property be adjacent to the lake, the practical difficulty would be
alleviated and the variance would not be necessary.
Mrs. Szabo reiterated he was worried about the lake and anything coming off the hill. She
explained it was a really steep hill.
Mr. Newill thought the practicality of building something on it was nil then.
Mrs. Szabo said they could if they build into the hill.
Mr. Szabo was concerned with the new owners putting livestock on the hill and there being
runoff. He thought the line was where it was most feasible and where it should be placed for
aesthetics.
Mrs. Mustafa asked both the applicants if the variance was the minimum necessary to
alleviate the difficulty.
Mr. Szabo stated the hill was steep and if they disturbed the land there would be runoff going
into the lake. He said it was about a 40 degree angle.
Holly Toner and Todd Eastman 9596 State Route were sworn in. Ms. Toner stated they were
planning to purchase the property the variance was requested for and for the record they
didn’t want any portion of the lake or to carry any of the additional insurance and they didn’t
know how to properly care for the lake so they didn’t want to deal with the lake.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if the buyers had a letter from the bank stating it was a problem for the
loan.
Mr. Eastman said they did not but he had talked to his insurance agent who informed them
the insurance rate would increase dramatically with the lake and suggested they get away
from the lake if possible. It was a telephone conversation and he didn’t have anything in
writing.
Jeff Allen, 8221 State Route 14, was sworn in and stated the practical difficulty there is that
the Szabos have done such a fine job of keeping the lake beautiful with no pollutants in the
water which did run under SR 43 into Yoder’s Ditch and there has never been a complaint
about polluting the water source. If you don’t have one person in control there could be
pollutants in the water. The back slope was very, very steep and could end up with the
mower and gas in the lake. He was concerned the city would have a huge liability, the buyers
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 5

would have a liability, EPA problems, water runoff problems; it was just really a problem. The
Szabos had proved that they can take care of the lake for 40 years and do it diligently.
Mrs. Mustafa asked Mr. Vazzana since there were two variances did they do them
separately, together or give the applicant the option how to handle them.
Mr. Vazzana said I would handle them separately because the task was to decide whether or
not, when you balance these factors, whether or not the conditions peculiar to this property
rise to the level of a practical difficulty and therefore a variance is necessary so you have two
variances and you’re going to do that process twice.
Mr. Bross asked if this parcel were to be split would the garage side yard setbacks be to code
for an R-R location.
Mr. Cieszkowski answered for an accessory building, yes. Per 1151.21 (a) “accessory
buildings not attached to the main structure. An accessory building shall not be located closer
than 15 feet to the main building and not closer than 12 feet to the side and rear”. So it would
not be any closer than 12 feet to the new side yard setback.
Mr. Newill asked for clarification.
Mr. Cieszkowski stated he was reading from the accessory building standards. Mr. Bross was
asking clarification that the location of the garage relative to the new or proposed property
line would be in line with the code requirements; those code requirements are that the
structure be a minimum of 12 feet from the side and rear property line.
Mr. Newill stated they were talking about the side of the garage not the house.
Mr. Cieszkowski affirmed.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if the Szabos had any other comments.
Mrs. Szabo stated she didn’t understand why this was two variances, she understood why
this was two variances now but did they have to go through this again for the other variance.
Mr. Bross said no they would do them both now.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if she knew it was two variances.
Mrs. Szabo said no, there was never anything written to them.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if no one helped them fill out the application.
Mrs. Szabo said not really, it was all new to them.
Ms. Vadaj stated the applicants did get a legal notice but might not have read it.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 6

Mrs. Szabo added Ms. Vadaj kind of helped her to the best of her knowledge but other than
that, no.
Mr. Newill still had an issue with the practical difficulty since there was another solution to this
on the two acre minimum. He understood the setback on the building line but he thought they
were being told there was a possibility of unfavorable things happening but didn’t think that
was a rational for not holding them to the two acre minimum if in fact there was another
solution to the situation.
Mr. Hillyer agreed, he thought there was an alternative solution for adjustment, there might be
a way to subtlety alter the line to make it work for everyone. He was still trying to figure out
what the practical difficulty was.
Mrs. Szabo stated again the buyers did not want to take care of the property on the hill,
despite the runoff and the things that could happen if someone built something they don’t
have the equipment to take care of the hill.
Mr. Bross explained they would be voting on these separately.
Motion: Mr. Bross
I hereby move on this 21 th day of May, 2013, the Streetsboro Board of Zoning and
Building Appeals grant a variance to 8729 State Route 43 – Szabo request a variance
from Sec. 1125.03(a)(1) of the Zoning Code to allow a minimum lot area per dwelling
unit to be 1.87 acres where the code requires 2.0 acres. Variance is for 0.13 acre. Per
drawings submitted 04-02-13. Subject to all Planning and Zoning ordinances and site
plan review of the City of Streetsboro where applicable. Seconded by Mr. Berecek.
Roll call: Yes – 0, No – 5. Motion denied.
Motion: Mr. Bross
I hereby move on this 21 th day of May, 2012, the Streetsboro Board of Zoning and
Building Appeals grant a variance to 8729 State Route 43 – Szabo B. Request a
variance from Sec. 1125.03(b)(1) to allow the minimum width at the building setback
line be 155 where the code requires 175. Variance is for 20 feet. The property is zoned
R-R. Per drawings submitted 04-02-13. Subject to all Planning and Zoning ordinances
and site plan review of the City of Streetsboro where applicable. Seconded by Mr.
Hillyer.
Roll call: Yes – 4, No – 2 (Bross, Mustafa). Motion carried.
Mrs. Mustafa said the first request for a variance has been declined and she believed she
was hearing from the board two different things; for the application, there was a lot of
confusion as to what the answers were and they found it difficult to see a practical difficulty.
So that was the reason for the decline on the first one but the second request is passed and
she appreciated them coming in and tomorrow they could stop in to Planning and Zoning to
discuss other alternatives.
Mrs. Szabo asked which one passed and which one didn’t.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 7

Mrs. Mustafa said there were two variances; A and B. We read them separately. The second
variance was the one approved which was a request from Section 1125.03(b)(1) to allow the
minimum width at the building setback line to be 155 feet where the code requires 175. The
variance is for 20 feet.
Mr. Szabo asked if that meant they had to resurvey and take that chuck out.
Mrs. Mustafa said the decision was made and if they wanted to talk with Planning and Zoning
about another strategy, feel free to do that.
Mr. Szabo asked if this would require a new survey.
Ms. Vadaj affirmed.
Board Member Comments none
Mr. Cieszkowski announced there was a MPRC meeting the next evening at 7 pm. He was
not at the last meeting but believed they had made it through all the discussion on the future
land use map and changes thereto. The meeting minutes were being shared with the
Planning Commission at this point and upon request would be sent to anyone on this board.
He couldn’t give them a good idea as to when it would be done and would have a better idea
once he talked to Todd Peetz (Portage County Regional Planning Director). He thought they
were on the home stretch.
Mrs. Mustafa asked if anyone had heard from Mr. Bukowski.
Ms. Vadaj didn’t think so, there were no messages.
Motion: Mr. Hillyer
Not to excuse Mr. Bukowski from this hearing. Seconded by Mr. Bross. Upon voice
vote motion carried.
Mrs. Mustafa reminded the board that she depended on them to be there for a quorum. Mrs.
Mustafa was concerned for Mr. Stenglein as he had come into the Planning Office and said
he would be attending the hearing this evening and had not called off.
Motion: Mr. Bross
Not to excuse Mr. Stenglein from this hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hillyer. Upon voice
vote motion carried.
Mrs. Mustafa would call Mr. Stenglein to make sure he was okay after the hearing.
Announcements: The next Board of Zoning Hearing will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday,
June 18, 2013 at the Streetsboro Municipal Building at 9184 St. Rt. 43.
Adjournment
There being no further business before this Board the hearing was adjourned at 7:53 pm.
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 8

Attest:
_______________________
Stacey Vadaj, Zoning Inspector
Interim Clerk
_______________________
Cindy Mustafa, Chairman
City of Streetsboro Board of Zoning & Building Appeals May 21, 2013 Page 9