Stow BZA approves multiple setback, accessory-structure and fence variances; one case tabled

The Stow Board of Zoning Appeals on April 14 approved six zoning variances for single‑family and accessory structures across the city and agreed to table one industrial setback case at the applicant’s request.

The board approved variances allowing a 2,388‑square‑foot accessory building and a height of 25 feet at 53 Shawnee Drive; a rear‑setback reduction for an addition at 4864 Elm Way; gazebo setbacks at two condominium and single‑family properties; a 6‑foot privacy fence on a corner lot with a 20‑foot right‑of‑way condition; and a second driveway and enlarged accessory garage at 3536 Kent Road. Earlier in the meeting the board accepted a tabling request for an industrial setback application at 6671 Macaulay Road, noting the applicant had used its second allowable tabling and that a vote will be required at the next meeting.

Votes at a glance BZA2025‑003 (6671 Macaulay Road) — Applicant requested tabling; board agreed to table one final time. Motion: table until next regular meeting; applicant informed this is the final allowable tabling. Outcome: tabled (no vote on merits recorded).

BZA2025‑005 (53 Shawnee Drive) — Applicant: Anna Casey. Requested variances under section 11.43.07(b) to exceed the 1,500‑square‑foot accessory‑area limit for lots greater than one acre and under 11.43.07(c) to increase accessory‑building height to 25 feet (10‑foot variance). Proposal: a 1,200‑square‑foot enclosed building plus two lean‑tos for a combined 2,388 sq ft on a 22‑acre R‑2 lot to store forestry and agricultural equipment. Motion (as recorded): approve variances for 2,388 sq ft total and 25 ft height with no conditions. Vote: unanimous affirmative from board members present. Applicant: Anna Casey said the building is to protect equipment used for maple sugaring, sawmilling and related agricultural work and that she has minimized tree removal.

BZA2025‑006 (4864 Elm Way) — Applicant: Jay Ziek. Request: rear setback reduction to 10 feet instead of 30 feet for a garage addition (code cited 11.43.44(a) in staff remarks). Background: identical variance had been granted in 2021 but expired before construction. Motion: approve; Vote: unanimous affirmative. Staff noted the application matched the previously approved plan.

BZA2025‑007 (1891 Village Court) — Applicant: Diane Hernandez. Request: allow a gazebo approximately 3 feet from the principal structure where 12 feet is required (variance of 9 feet; code cited 11.43.07(a)). Applicant supplied a condo‑association approval letter. Motion: approve; Vote: unanimous affirmative. Hernandez told the board the association approved the design and that the gazebo is limited by an existing 16‑foot buildable depth from the unit.

BZA2025‑009 (2067 Marhopper Road) — Applicant: Christopher Hawks. Request: allow a 6‑foot privacy fence in the street‑facing/front yard of a corner lot (code cited 11.43.07(e)); applicant originally requested a 17‑foot right‑of‑way setback. The board conditioned approval on a 20‑foot setback from the right‑of‑way, citing precedent for similar corner‑lot fence permissions and the need to preserve sight lines at intersections. Motion: approve with condition (20‑foot right‑of‑way setback); Vote: unanimous affirmative.

BZA2025‑010 (2415 Hillcrest Drive) — Applicant: Daniel O’Donnell. Request: allow a gazebo 11 feet from the principal structure (1‑foot variance from 12‑foot requirement, 11.43.07(a)). Motion: approve; Vote: unanimous affirmative. There were no neighbor objections on record.

BZA2025‑011 (3536 Kent Road) — Applicant (on record at hearing): Spadnik (applicant/owner listed as Bridal Savick in staff report; transcript identifies the presenter as Spadnik). Requests combined: a second driveway for a single‑family lot (code cited 11.81.09[a]), a single accessory structure larger than 500 sq ft (applicant proposed up to 800 sq ft), and an increase to total accessory‑structure area (existing 160‑sq‑ft shed would remain; combined accessory area would exceed 500 sq ft). The city engineer had reviewed and raised no objection to a second driveway at the proposed location. Motion: approve second driveway and accessory‑structure variances for an 800‑sq‑ft garage and the increased combined accessory area; Vote: unanimous affirmative. Staff advised that if the existing small shed is later replaced the owner must apply for a permit and the board at that time could reconsider approvals if maximums would be exceeded.

Why it matters These decisions show the board continuing to use variances to respond to site‑specific conditions on corner lots, small rear yards and large rural lots while deferring one industrial request at the applicant’s request. Several approvals referenced prior approvals, condo‑association letters or engineering review. The board repeatedly noted precedent and sight‑distance and right‑of‑way concerns when conditioning approvals.

What the board said Sarah, Planning Department staff, summarized each application and supplied code citations and maps. Anna Casey, applicant for 53 Shawnee Drive, described agricultural uses and said, “I’m also pretty protective of the trees and the surrounding nature…and to minimize I cut down quite a few trees to make the space for this building already.” Christopher Hawks said the fence request was for “privacy and security” for a corner lot with limited backyard space.

Next steps Applicants were told to expect written approvals and permit notifications; staff said notifications would be sent the next day. The tabled industrial case was explicitly told by staff that the applicant had exhausted the two allowable tablings and must be decided at the next meeting.

Ending note The board moved on after the votes to a public‑records and open‑meetings presentation and a zoning‑code rewrite briefing that staff said is intended to reduce the number of small, routine variances (see separate article on the proposed code changes).