BZA June 1, 2010 GMHA

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on June 1, 2010, with Mary Lee Brezina, Glen Quigley, Bill Skomrock Sr, and Tezeon Wong  present. 

Mr. Fidel read the applicant's request:  Dan Gellen, agent for GMHA, requests an area variance to build a 512 sq. ft. pavilion that would straddle the lot lines between 14561 & 14569 Linda Dr. and be 74 ft. from the Linda Dr. road right of way (vs. Art.V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. from R-o-W & 30 ft. side line setback) at property located in the Scranton Woods subdivision.  Additional relief is required for expansion of a non-conforming use (vs. Art. XIV, Sec. 14.04 B,C,D & F).

All in attendance for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in.


Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Gellen to state his case.  He said that GMHA would like to build a pavilion shelter for the Chagrin Falls Park Community Center’s sponsored Summer Food Service Program for Children to include lunch, games, readings, gardening (already there)and other kids’ activities.  The shelter would be centrally located, visible to the sheriffs’ patrol and usable for the Scranton Woods Community at no charge.


Mr. Quigley asked for funding clarification; Mr. Gellen distributed Exhibit A: details on the Ohio Summer Food Service Program to all board members.  Mr. Gellen said that straddling these chosen lot lines was the best location.  The pavilion would be centered between garage sides of buildings, open-air for resident’s use rain or shine.  GMHA would self-police the use, provide trash cans and monitor rule compliance.


Discussion continued regarding parking: there is presently no on-street parking, sheriff would be advised for parking exceptions for CFP personnel (3-4 cars during program hours), the children ages 5-12 (>25) live near by accompanied by an adult and this is NOT a day-care.

Mr. Skomrock questioned setting a precedent by building across 2 lots – Mr. Gellen said both lots were owned by GMHA.  Mr. Quigley added that GMHA is a government agency not bound by zoning but showing good faith by applying for this zoning variance per NZC.

Mr. Skomrock asked about the time frame for pavilion usage and problems with common usage.  Mr. Gellen restated the main purpose for the pavilion is for the CFP children’s program in use between 9 and noon, there would be no alcohol and no night parties.  The Block Watch would monitor with signs posted for resident’s use.

Mr. Quigley said he would favor the variance with conditions for hours of use, alcohol prohibited and a benchmark for complaints with GMHA as the enforcing agency.  Mr. Yaecker reminded the board they can’t rule on a governmental agency.  Mr. Gellen said GMHA has rules and regulations that residents must adhere to with violators facing eviction – a strong deterent.  The community would work together to weed out the bad apples.  Ms. Endres said the GMHA management has had good relations with the sheriff’s department.  Mr. Gellen agreed  no porta-potties are needed as parents/kids live near-by, water could be made available during program hours.  Feasibility of lighting and electrical outlets were discussed and the board decided against additional conditions for electric.  Mr. Gellen agreed to accept the 3 conditions for hours, alcohol and parking.

Mr.Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions.  There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.


Glen Quigley moved to grant the variance to construct a 512 sq.ft. pavilion straddling 2 lot lines as requested - adding the following conditions;


1)      Hours of use restricted for residents only: from dawn to dusk,

2)      No alcohol use at any time,

3)      No on-street parking with exceptions for CFP program personnel showing a posted ID in the windshield.


 Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion.


Glen Quigley                                                     yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr.                                             yes

Mary Lee Brezina                                             yes

Tezeon Wong                                                    yes

Ray Fidel                                                             yes


Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his variance request was 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 required permit can be issued once all requirements regarding this application are satisfied, although if you plan construction it is recommended you wait the 30 days before proceeding.  The challenge could reverse or negate our decision.  At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”. 


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.


The board members wished the applicant good luck with his project.


Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:35 p.m.


Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant the variance to build a 512 sq.ft. accessory structure straddling 2 lot lines with 3 conditions:


1)      Hours of use restricted for residents only: from dawn to dusk,

2)      No alcohol use at any time,

3)      No on-street parking with exceptions for CFP program personnel showing a posted ID in the windshield.


a)      The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the pavilion addition would allow children’s programs and enhance community use.


b)      The variance is substantial but allows a reasonable location between buildings.


c)    The essential character of the neighborhood would be enhanced, and the adjoining property     owners would suffer no detriment as a result of this variance.


d)    The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.


e)            The owner purchased the property without specific knowledge of these zoning restrictions.


f)             The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than a variance given the odors from the septic system at the only other possible location.


g)     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; there were no adjacent property owners in attendance to object.


Items clarified were the 30 day rule & property owners with standing before the court and any conditions added by the BZA must be relevant to the case.


Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA meeting at 8:45 p.m.



Marge Hrabak