Lakewood Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – March 21, 2024

The Lakewood Board of Zoning Appeals met on March 21, 2024, at 11:45 AM to consider a variance request for a proposed townhome development at 12534 Lake Avenue. The meeting included approval of previous minutes, applicant presentation, public comment, and a board vote to defer the item to a future meeting.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the minutes from the February 15, 2024 meeting unanimously (5-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mike Pasco (owner of 12543 Lake Avenue, directly across the street) objected to the variance request. He argued:
  • The proposal requires massive variances (up to 1,000% lot coverage and infinite setback variances).
  • The applicant bought the property in December 2021 knowing zoning restrictions.
  • The existing house could be renovated and sold profitably; no evidence of economic hardship was presented.
  • He cited Ohio case law (Console Management v. Cleveland, Mezzanine v. Munson Township) to argue the applicant failed to meet the hardship standard for a use variance.
  • He stated he would challenge a granted variance in court (R.C. 2506 appeal).
• Mr. Pasco also questioned whether alternative uses or less intensive redevelopment were considered and alleged a bribe attempt (the applicant denied this). The board clarified that cross-examination was not permitted in this quasi-administrative hearing.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation (Tyler Brummet, owner):
  • Proposed 16 townhome units on a ~0.7-acre multifamily high-density site.
  • The design aims to blend three surrounding contexts: modern lakefront high-rises, mid-rise apartment buildings (east), and single-family homes (south/west).
  • Plans include integral two-car garages, visitor parking, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and preservation of a historic wall.
  • The applicant stated the zoning code is contradictory—desired multifamily character but with suburban setback requirements—making the site impractical to develop without variances.
  • Approximately 8 area variances per parcel (e.g., lot size, frontage, setbacks, lot coverage) are needed; these are area variances evaluated under the "practical difficulty" test, not use variances.
• Administrative Comments (Mr. Alexander, Building Department):
  • The variances stem from the decision to sell units as separate parcels (16 lots) rather than rental buildings (which would require fewer variances).
  • The spirit and intent of the code support diverse housing types; the plans were already approved by the Architectural Board of Review (ABR) and demolition of the existing home was approved.
  • The lot split will go to Planning Commission after variance approval.
  • The building and fire departments have reviewed turning radii and addressing.
• Board Questions:
  • Mr. Markley asked about the magnitude of variances; the administration said the detailed drawing is the reference, and enumerating each variance to the inch was not efficient.
  • Mr. Santiago asked whether the existing single-family home could still be used residentially. The administration noted the structure is non-conforming but could potentially be renovated (with a permit), though the property has been vacant and abandoned, which may trigger extinguishment of non-conformity. The city has no formal opinion on that hypothetical.
  • The applicant argued renovating the house is impractical (no driveway, millions in cost, not sellable).
• Mr. Fleck (city attorney) clarified: The standard for area variances is the "practical difficulty" test (nine factors), not the hardship test for use variances. The board weighs these factors, not each individually. A charter update is pending to clarify this.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Defer: Made by Mr. Markley, seconded by Ms. Bellino. The board voted 4-1 (Mr. Pigot dissenting) to defer the variance request to a future meeting. The chair cited the need for the applicant to review new materials submitted by the objector and for the administration to provide a formal zoning opinion on whether the existing structure could be reoccupied as a single-family home.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned after the deferral vote (all present).