Thread by @DocumenterK

Hi, I'm Keith and I'll be live-tweeting today’s Monday, May 3, 2021, City of Cleveland's department Board of Zoning Appeals meeting starting at 9:30 AM for #CLEDocumenters

Here is a brief description on the department of the Board of Zoning Appeals and a list of its members,

For further introductory information on Zoning review Intro to Zoning by Cleveland City Planner Matt Moss

assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2069…

Join us at 9:30 AM & watch today's City of Cleveland Department Board of Zoning Appeals meeting here,

Today’s Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals meeting agenda can be found here,

planning.clevelandohio.gov/bza/agenda/202…

Use Cleveland City Planning Commission Zoning GIS Map service to identify the location of the property in discussion and quickly identify the Zoning of a particular parcel.

clevelandgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappvie…

Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals meeting is live and Secretary Liz Kukla has read the preamble, roll called, and acknowledged a quorum.

Calendar No. 21-056 is introduced and being reviewed.

Liz Kukla reviews the history of the property, at one points it was zoned for retail

The Legal Standard request is a use and area variance.

James Kavanagh is present and mentioned that h

@mattm178 Matt Moss is present and states the owner should "do something to mitigate the noncompliant parking in the front. ... My preference is that the condition be mitigated by some kind of landscaping or reference but other than that we support the variances as requested."

Carol Johnson quips, "Did they park a horse and buggy there?"

Everyone chuckles.

Johnson follows up inquiring about parking. She states,

"I wonder if there is anything we can do to eliminate the parking."

Member Tim Donovan asks, "Are they showing that as a legal parking spot?"

Mr. Kavanagh responds, "Yes, we've had police offers always drive by and I have asked them if it's legal and they've indicated it is."

Member Tim Donovan responds, "That's because Officer Lansing retired. He knew his legal."

Matt Moss agrees.

Chairman Johnson asks, "What are the chances of you eliminate the parking space?"

Mr. Kavanagh responds, "I am not prepared to answer that question. It's been that way for 15 years and we've not had one issue."

Calendar No. 21-056 is granted conditionally given that no permanent parking take places in front of the building.

Calendar No. 21-057 is introduced and presented.

Sarah Masson, owner, proposes to erect approximately 70 linear feet of four-foot-high chain link fence in interior side/front yard in an A1 One-Family Residential District on property 3712 West 129 Street.

Liz Kukla reviews the history and notes that zoning has not changed.

The Legal Standard requested is an area variance.

Property Owner Sara Masson is present and indicates that she would like to install a chain-link fence because of

(1) a dispute with her neighbor,
(2) "I've had my house hit by cars. ... My siding has been damaged. My flower beds have been hit. They've been vigilant to my yard."

Property Owner Sara Masson continues,

"I know that the concern is of appearances."

Mrs. Masson's dispute with the neighbor arises in part from the neighbor's installation of a concrete pad that extended on to her property line and has created a conflict with the tenants of that property and parking.

Chairman Johnson focuses on the gutter downspout and is concerned about how it extends out on to the driveway instead of into a drain.

Mrs. Masson comments it used to drain into the ground but she did not like her flower bed being washed out so she adjusted it.

Egar Gil is present and comments about a non related event. He is ignored.

Chief City Planner Maurice Ruelens comments that,

"I'm not sure how to come down on this. I do think she deserves a fence on the side of her property. I don't like a chain link but that is a personal choice. I'd like to see a more decorative fence in the front yard."

Member Kelley Britt asks for clarification as to why Mrs. Masson is present.

Mrs. Masson summarizes that she needed a variance to extend a chain link fence to the sidewalk.

Member Donvan reads Nick Bacardi's comment that the fence should be 3 feet from the fence.

City Planner Ruelens responds, "That would be the 2nd variance requested."

Liz Kukla notes that if chain link fences are a common feature in the neighborhood than approval is common.

Mrs. Masson indicates she has collected a list of addresses with fences.

Chairman Johnson follows up and asks about the current wooden fence in the front of her driveway.

The discussion continues about the rear fence on the left adjacent side of her property.

Per Mrs. Masson, the fence is a chain-link fence with wood attached.

Member Kelley Britt comments, "We're here to decide a chain-link fence and we're talking alot about this."

Conversation follows and Mrs. Masson interjects that if this isn't approved she will higher a company to cut out the driveway as it is on her property.

Member Kelley Britt comments, "We've approved chain-linked fences and ones that are coated black. This a lot of conversation for this fence."

City Planner Ruelens comments, "I agree with that."

Member Tim Donvan comments "Can we have a landscape strip too?"

Member Kelley Britt likes this idea as does City Planner Ruelens who admits "We just don't like chain-link fences."

Calendar No. 21-057 is approved via a compromise with Property Owner Mrs. Sarah Masson. The variance will be granted as long as she includes beautification effort along the fence such as planters.

Calendar No. 21-059 is presented and introduced.

Valerie Starks-Hutton, owner of 17508 Throckley Ave, proposes to establish use as a Residential Facility in an A1 One-Family Residential District.

Property owner Valeria Starks Hutton is present and confirmed in.

Liz Kukla reviews the history of property.

The legal variance requested is an area variance.

Valeria Starks Hutton has the floor and states her goal of creating a family home for women.

Mrs. Hutton used to live there and moved because she found a dead body on her parcel. "I had young children and was scared. I had to get out of there."

Mrs. Hutton continues, "My goal is to put something here to also protect the community."

Chairman Johnson asks, "You are aware that another family home is within 1,000 feet?"

Chief City Planner Ruelens chimes in that "The 1,000 feet rule is to avoid clustering of residential facilities. The other one is 2 or 3 streets away and technically in another city but that does not stop clustering. I can see arguments for both."

Chief City Planner Ruelens continues that he has been generally impressed by Mrs. Hutton's engagement with the community.

Member Tim Donovan inquires about the standard operating procedures of the proposed residential facility and indicates he would like to see a manual.

Liz Kukla informs the Members of two phone calls that voiced objections to the residential facility. One suggested it is too small for a facility.

Mrs. Hutton responds and disagrees with those comments, describing an addition and the cathedral nature of the building.

Chairman Johnson inquiries about potential residents and if they will be screen for drug use or applicants with drug history restricted.

Mrs. Hutton provides a letter that indicates she does not allow drug activity.

Member Tim Donovan & Chairman Johnson suggests that they postpone the decision until June 7th to allow Mrs. Hutton time to create an operations plan that can be presented to the City and to property neighbors.

Calendar No. 21-059 is postponed until June 7th, 2021 to allow Valerie Starks-Hutton time to create an operations plan.

Calendar No. 21-048 is introduced and reviewed.

Fahkrim Mahmoud, owner of 3224 W. 73rd Street, and Devon Gresham, lessee, propose to establish use as retail convenience store in a B1 Two-Family Residential District

Devon Gresham and Eric is present and sworn in to comment.

The initial postponement was to allow time to hold a public meeting on the proposal.

The Legal Standard requested in use variance and an area variance.

Chairman Johnson asks if a public meeting has happened.

Krish Harsh is present and acknowledges a meeting did happen with about twelve residents. At the conclusion of the meeting, they were in support of the requested variances.

Mr. Harsh notes that there were concerns about hours and underage drinking but mostly about the closing time of the store.

Member Tim Donovan inquires, "Didn't you say you wouldn't sell alcohol to the community but then you went and acquired a permit to sell beer?"

Mr. Krish Harsh comes to their defense & says the community was never under the impression that they wouldn't sell alcohol.

Laurie comments that,

"BOZA does not have the ability to regulate alcohol sales. If they tried to impose conditions on the variance it would not be legally enforceable. The store can sell whatever Ohio allows them to sell."

Laurie comments, "You do have the ability to impose operation of hours on the variance."

Chief Planner Ruelens states a 6-foot fence needs to be installed on the property line adjacent to the house.

Member Britt motions for approval of the variance conditionally.

Member Donovan is still concerned about the sale of alcohol and wants to know if they will sell it. Other BOZA members tell him again that board doesn't have the right to regulate alcohol sales.

Calendar No. 21-048 is approved conditionally if a 6-foot fence is installed and the parking lot is paved.

Calendar No. 21-006 is presented and reviewed.

Chase White & Dave Lewis, owners of 9501 Pierpont Ave. Ward, proposes to change the use from a two family to a three-family dwelling in a B1 Two-Family Residential.

Chairman Johnson asks property owner Dave Lewis, "Have we received anything from you since the last meeting?"

Mr. Lewis says he

Calendar No. 21-006 was first postponed to allow time for owner Dave Lewis time to research the res judicata issue.

Laurie asks, "Have you hired or consulted a lawyer about the res judicata issue?"

Property owner Mr. Lewis responds that, "To have this shot down by 1969 res judicata, do I need an attorney for this? I don't see a basis for this decision other res judicata. Someone has to stand up and say this was years ago. "

Property owner Mr. Lewis continues, "I am not asking for some weird 2 family home converted to a 3 family home. I have other properties just like this within a 1.1 mile distance."

Member Tim Donovan interjects, "In the court of common sense, I would make a motion to support hearing this."

Image of Member Tim Donovan.
Source: clevelandmagazine.com/cleader/commun…

Chief Planner Maurice Ruelen read a chat comment that the property owner was aware of the zoning issue when he purchased it.

Member Tim Donovan motions to hear the case. Members approve to hear it except for Chairman Johnson who votes against it.

Property owner Dave Lewis introduces and reviews his argument for the variances.

"We're not trying to get a 3 unit where there are not 3 units nearby. This is a reasonable constructed case. The egress is there. There are 13 other buildings like this within 1.2 square miles."

Property owner Dave Lewis continues,

"My point is, how did they get approved? What have I not done to be approved?"

Chairman Johnson responds, "They may not be legal. They may just be operating on their own."

A discussion ensues between BOZA and the property owner. It concludes that the property owner Dave Lewis install two egresses and update the parking according to code, which includes new pavement.

Calendar No. 21-006 is conditionally approved granted he brings the parking to code confirming condition, which includes paving and draining.

BOZA quickly reviews old business.

Three requests for affirmation are confirmed without objection.

Today, Monday, May 3, 2021, City of Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals meeting has adjourned at or around 11:34 PM.

A summary for Monday, May 3, 2021, City of Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

Calendar No. 21-056 was approved conditionally.
Calendar No. 21-057 was approved conditionally.
Calendar No. 21-059 was postponed to allow time for the creation of an operations plan.

Calendar No. 21-048 was approved conditionally.
Calendar No. 21-006 was approved conditionally.

Request for delays:
Calendar No. BZA20-139 was approved.
Calendar No. BZA20-145 was approved.
Calendar No. BZA20-137 was approved.

To become involved and for more meeting coverage, check out documenters.org. Have questions? Think we got something wrong? Send any enquiries on the meeting or these tweets to @cledocumenters

Or email us at [e-mail]