Board denies homeowner's requests to legalize unpermitted garage addition in North Ridgeville

The North Ridgeville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals unanimously denied two variance requests from Javier Feliciano related to a garage addition constructed without permits at 584 Roosevelt Avenue.

Feliciano sought (1) a 1-foot variance to allow a detached garage to sit 4 feet from the side property line (code requires 5 feet) and (2) a 10-foot variance to allow the detached garage to abut a covered porch (applicant showed 0 feet; code requires 10 feet) under Section 1294.03(A) as cited in the staff report.

Administration staff summarized the application history: the structure was the subject of a violation in April 2024 and the applicant previously appeared before the board in July 2024 (two variance requests denied), December 2024 (reduced request denied) and February 2025 (another denial). Staff said the recent addition would meet overall area limits but now triggers setback variances because of its relationship to an on-lot porch.

Feliciano apologized to the board for prior behavior and described the design as intended to provide covered outdoor space for his children. He told the board he would not enclose the porch and offered to remove the older garage to leave the new structure, saying, "I figure... I'd tear down the old building because... I just leave 1, the new 1, and then we can take the old 1 and just make it... use it as a porch." He also said he built the design to give his children a place to play when it rains.

Board members and staff questioned the applicant's decision to build without obtaining required permits. The chair noted the variance requests were substantial (one a 100% variance) and cited the Duncan factors in evaluating area variances: the board discussed whether the property could yield reasonable return without the variance, whether the variance was substantial, and whether it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Staff noted removing the previously existing garage would produce a legal-sized garage and reduce the need for variance relief.

The board voted to decline each variance separately; both motions carried unanimously with recorded yes votes from members Kane, Grotman, Weaver, Toth and Masterson. The board made clear that building without a permit weighed against granting relief and that enforcement (including return to the board or court if enclosure occurred later) remained options for the city.

The applicant was told his options were limited: staff confirmed that if the noncompliant structure were removed the lot could support a legal garage with only a side-yard setback variance, and that future enforcement action would follow if the porch were enclosed without approval.