City of Lakewood Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Summary – April 18, 2024

The Lakewood Board of Zoning Appeals held its regular meeting on April 18, 2024. Members present were Michael Alexander, Gillian Bellino, Jeffrey Pickett, and Anthony Santiago; Matt Markling was excused by a unanimous motion. The board approved the minutes of the March 21, 2024 meeting, heard one old-business variance case, and approved three variance requests across two new-business cases.

Call to Order and Routine Approvals

• Roll call was taken; all four attending members answered present.
• The board voted unanimously to excuse Matt Markling.
• Minutes from the March 21, 2024 meeting were approved unanimously.
• The opening statement advised applicants that variances must satisfy the practical difficulty test and that all submitted materials would be considered before a decision.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mike Pasco, speaking against the Shady Cove Townhomes variance, argued that the applicant had not demonstrated a practical difficulty. He said the 0.7-acre parcel could be divided into fewer conforming parcels, that the existing single-family home could be rebuilt if destroyed, and that the requested variances were substantial, including setback variances he described as effectively infinite because there would be no setback. He cited the ProTERRA case and a 1986 Ohio Supreme Court decision, and said he would appeal under R.C. 2506 if the variances were granted.
• Pasco asked to cross-examine the applicant; the board declined. Pasco reserved his appeal rights without waiving them.

Old Business – Shady Cove Townhomes, 1253 Lake Avenue (Docket 10-16-23)

• The applicant presented a historical study of the neighborhood to support the proposed townhouse project. Their representatives said the parcel sits at the transition point between mid-rise, high-rise, and single-family areas, that the site's zoning permits multifamily use, and that townhouses are the appropriate way to tie those conditions together. They also described the existing house as the last remnant of the original estate context, with no driveway or backyard and limited marketability.
• Board members asked whether the multifamily zoning intended rentals or homeownership, how long the parcel had been zoned multifamily, whether alternatives were explored, and whether safety-force access had been considered. The applicant said a prior apartment building design had been studied but current setbacks and parking requirements left little buildable area; the parcel had been zoned multifamily for a long time; and emergency vehicle and garbage truck turning radii were being coordinated with staff.
• City staff reported that the design had already been approved by the Architectural Board of Review, that the lot split into 16 parcels with a remainder had been submitted to the Planning Commission, and that the variance request was driven by the for-sale subdivision of the site. Staff also corrected its earlier view: a single-family home is permitted by right in the multifamily district, so the existing house could be rehabilitated or rebuilt.
• The board discussed the practical difficulty factors and the applicant's burden. The chair noted that with only four members present, approval required three votes, and a denial would bar the same variances for six months; the applicant chose to proceed.
• A motion to approve the requested three variances passed unanimously by a 4-0 vote.

New Business – 1246 Manor Park Avenue (Docket 04-07-24)

• The applicant requested variances to build a two-story addition, breezeway, covered porch, and a new two-car garage approximately 23 feet 4 inches by 50 feet deep close to the south side property line.
• Staff said the property is in the R1H district, the lot is about 12,000 square feet, the proposal would result in about 25% primary lot coverage, under the 35% allowance, and only the south side-yard setback and combined side-yard setback variances were required.
• The board saw the proposal as an improvement; a motion to approve variance one and variance two passed 4-0.

New Business – 1047 Kirtland Lane (Docket 04-08-24)

• The applicant returned with revisions to a previously approved second-story unroofed patio deck project. The updated scope included a larger second-floor addition and a third-floor dormer, with a new variance request for an open-air patio deck on the third floor.
• Staff reported that the board has approved similar unroofed deck projects without observed or reported negative impacts. A neighbor, Dorothy Falcone, called with questions about the changes but did not object.
• A motion to approve the variance passed 4-0.

Key Outcomes

• All three variance requests were approved by 4-0 votes: Shady Cove Townhomes (Docket 10-16-23), Manor Park Avenue (Docket 04-07-24), and Kirtland Lane (Docket 04-08-24).
• The board declined Pasco's cross-examination request, preserved the record for his stated appeal rights, and adjourned after completing the docket.