STREETSBORO BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Note: These minutes were compiled b
Page 3: Mrs. Szabo replied no but the buyer
Page 7 and 8: Mrs. Szabo added Ms. Vadaj kind of
Page 9: Attest: _______________________ Sta

STREETSBORO BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?