Kevin Callahan, the applicant and homeowner, asked the North Ridgeville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for two variances to place an 80-square-foot shed 1 foot 3 inches from his side lot line and 1 foot 6 inches from his rear lot line; the board voted unanimously to deny both requests.

The board said the requested reductions from the city code — which requires a 5-foot setback from both side and rear lot lines — were substantial and raised long-term concerns because variances run with the property. "While the shed itself is modest in size, the request is relative to, the standard is significant," the chair said during deliberations.

The request came during a public hearing after Planning and Development Director Lieber summarized the application and cited the relevant code sections. "The applicant is proposing to install a new 80-square-foot shed in the rear yard," Lieber said, and noted that the proposed locations would require two separate variances under Section 1294.038 and Section 1294.03 of the city code.

Callahan told the board he wanted the shed at the rear corner of his lot to store a lawn mower and snowblower and to keep the items out of his small garage. "My backyard isn't particularly big to begin with. So if I go 5 feet off, it's just gonna kinda look like it's gonna look stupid," he told the board. He said the structure would be placed on 4x4s with stone around the edge and that his neighbor on that side had no objection.

Board members pressed Callahan on why he could not place the shed elsewhere on the lot and discussed the practical-difficulty standard for variances. "What you have to do is prove practical why can't you put this structure somewhere else? What is your hardship?" the chair asked. Callahan said he did not want the shed in the center of his backyard and that placing it there would interfere with future patio or deck plans.

Several board members said the relief sought was not minimal. One member expressed concern that a future owner could replace a temporary structure with a permanent one that included plumbing or electrical if the variance were granted. "If we grant this variance, the next owner of that property can erect a permanent structure there with plumbing, with wiring, without approaching this board once again," a board member said, adding that permits for electrical or plumbing would not negate the effect of an approved variance.

Members also cited maintenance and access concerns with the proposed location, noting the tight space between the shed and an existing fence. "A small mower is 20 inches ... I'm not sure how you could even mow the lawn behind that without going over your property line," a board member said.

After deliberation, a member moved to deny the rear setback variance; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote with Kane, Weaver, Toth and Masterson voting yes. The board then moved and approved a second motion denying the side setback variance by the same vote tally.

The board's action means Callahan may still place a shed on his property so long as it meets the 5-foot side and rear setback requirements in the city code, or he may revise his proposal and return to the board. The hearing record indicates the board relied on the standards for practical difficulties and on precedent concerns when deciding to deny the variances.

Details recorded in the hearing: the applicant sought two variances from the 5-foot side and rear setback requirements for an 80-square-foot accessory structure; the applicant proposed no electrical or plumbing for the unit; the board concluded the variances would be substantial and would run with the land if granted.