COPLEY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 506 REDFIELD LANE STAFF REPORT

April 14, 2021

PROJECT: 506 Redfield Lane PPN: 1508220 APPLICATION TYPE: Area Variance

LANDOWNER Lisa A & John Edwards

APPLICANT John Edwards

COMPANY PERFORMING WORK TBD REQUESTED

INVESTMENT TBD

APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant/landowner, John Edwards, is requesting area variances for the installation of an in-ground pool.

INITIATED BY Applicant & Landowner

DECISION TYPE ☐Informational ☐Direction ☒Action

CODE REFERENCES Per the Zoning Resolution, 6.01 (CC)-Swimming Pools-Swimming pools shall be located entirely to the rear of the main and shall not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet from the rear and side lot lines.

GENERAL LOCATION The property is located on the west side of Redfield Lane, south of Bentley Drive, north of Ridge Crest Drive and east of S Hametown Road.

LAND AREA 0.29 acre

ZONING PDD (Planned Development District)

AGENCY REVIEW Summit County Engineers Office

STAFF RECOMMENDATION PENDING

NOTIFICATION A notice has been placed in the West Side Leader and

1 notification letters have been sent to the property owner andadjacent landowners.

PROPERTY LOCATION

SITE ZONING LAND USE

North PDD Residential

South PDD Residential

East PDD Residential

West PDD Residential

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant/landowner, John Edwards, is requesting area variances for the installation of an in-ground pool.

Per the Zoning Resolution, 6.01 (CC)-Swimming Pools-Swimming pools shall be located entirely to the rear of the main building and shall not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet from the rear and side lot lines. 2 The applicant is requesting a variance from the following:

1. Placement of the pool entirely to the rear of the main building. The applicant has a 16’ x 16’ sunroom which extends into the rear of the property. The applicant would like to place the pool to side of the existing sunroom. 2. Placement of the pool 15’ from the rear and side property lines. The applicant is requesting to place the pool 8.8’ from the rear property line and 11.5’ from the southern side property line.

3 The applicant has an existing Storm Sewer Easement in the located along the northern property line. The applicant is seeking a survey to ensure that the existing accessory features which exist on the property are not encroaching upon the existing easement.

4 PER THE APPLICANT: REVIEW CRITERIA

Per the applicant, the Practical Difficulties that justify this application include:

We are proposing to install an in ground (15’x32’) within the 15’ setback requirement of our property lines. The location proposed is to the southwest of our and in the largest open area of our property where the south and west adjacent property are lands not occupiable or buildable and are owned as common grounds by our HOA (Home Owners Assoc.) Only our north property line has immediately adjacent neighbors. Due to civil construction and safety requirements, the pool should be located away from the by at least a distance equal to the depth of the . That depth and distance is slightly more than 7’. Using that criteria, we are proposing our pool be located such that its construction would be approximately 11.5’ from our south side property line and 8.5 feet from our west, rear property line. These distances would be less than the required setbacks for pools of 15’. We are seeking a variance for those setbacks as following the literal 15’ setback would not allow the full use of our property for our family. The proposed pool at 15’x32’ & depth ranging 12” to 6’ will be a fiberglass shell installed by a local pool contractor and completely in-ground. We believe this to be a reasonable use of the land as it would only use 480 sq ft on our 12,512 sq ft (3.8% of our lot). We are also seeking a variance to the same code requirement for the pool to be located not entirely behind the

5 house. We believe the best location is to locate the pool entirely behind the main body of the house except for the sunroom that extends out further. We propose that the pool construction begin approximately 4’ from the furthest rear point of the sunroom. The rationale is that this location would have the pool closer to the south part of our lot which is property line shared with the unoccupiable side lot owned by the HOA. This is rather than locating the pool more towards the middle of the . It would allow for more privacy and a greater distance from our neighbors to the north property lines. We believe the variance requests are not a significant change to the intent of the requirements. The setback variances would only allow our pool closer to unoccupiable and unused adjacent land. The variance to locate the pool behind the main body of the house rather than ‘entirely behind’ (including the sunroom extension, would still follow the intent of behind the house but not completely by only a few feet. We purchased this property and house in 2011 with the plan for it to be our forever home. Our goal is for it to be a safe and enjoyable home and environment for our family. We specifically chose this location and home because it had a good flat lot with adjacent south side and west rear lots owned by the HOA, which are not accessible for a home on those lots. We do not have a pool available to us with our HOA but believed that we could build one on our property per our HOA guidelines when we were ready to do so. We dreamed of using our lot and yard to its potential as our family grew. We have children and are planning this swimming pool to improve our home and with additional family recreation to create more memories together. Due to the 15’ setback requirement, there is no location on our property that would not require a variance for a pool installation and we believe the proposed location is best.

Per the applicant, the granting of the variance would have no negative effects to the neighborhood or community.

The construction will not adversely affect the adjacent property, easements, or the neighborhood. The proposed location allows the pool to be placed on the area of our lot furthest from our adjacent neighbors, since the south and west lots are HOA common grounds only. There will be enhanced landscaping with new plants, shrubs and trees to provide some visible screening from the pool. We will also be using an automatic closing safety cover for the pool as well as the 48” high fencing and systems with all required safety features for pool construction.

The overall construction will look nice and be an improvement on the bland and unappealing common grounds owned by the HOA. There is a general consensus by most community members and neighbors that the appearance of the common areas are bland and unappealing. The plan from the HOA has always been to only minimally maintain the common areas.

The adjacent property to the south is entirely labeled as an easement on the site plans but there is only 1 underground storm line from a retention pond to the storm system at the street. That line is approximately 30’ from our property line allowing more than enough access. The rear easement for the retention pond does cross into our rear property by 5’. The pool construction (and fencing) will not change or modify the grade to the land at or beyond our property line or within the easement that extends into our property, other than the fence. We will not build any part of the pool construction on the easement. The new fencing will be located on our property and on the easement within our property so we understand that the fence would have to be removed should a request be made by any utility needing to use that portion of the easement for work. If that were to ever occur, it would be our responsibility and cost to remove and replace the fence.

We believe granting the variances would still follow the spirit and intent of the zoning requirements. We are asking to encroach into the 15’ setbacks between our property line and the unoccupiable HOA common grounds to the side and rear by less than 4’ and 7 ‘ respectively. We are asking to locate the pool 4’ from the rear most point of our house sunroom, while completely behind the main body of the house. We believe allowing the variances would allow us the best use of our property while improving our life and time spent with family, friends, and neighbors.

6 INTERNAL REVIEW CRITERIA

a) Can the property in question yield a reasonable return or can there be a beneficial use of the property without the variance?

b) Is the variance substantial?

c) Will the essential character of the neighborhood be substantially altered or will adjoining properties suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance?

d) Does the variance adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (i.e. water, sewer, garbage)?

e) Did the applicant purchase the property with knowledge of zoning restrictions?

f) Can the property owner’s predicament be obviated through some other method than a variance?

g) Would the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance?

SUGGESTED MOTION AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED

Suggested motion pending additional review.

7