Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance request for circular driveway at 23345 Timberlane Drive
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 2–4 to deny a 110‑square‑foot variance that would have allowed a circular driveway at 23345 Timberlane Drive, citing flood-prone conditions, impervious-surface limits and precedence concerns.
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Beachwood Planning & Zoning Commission on a recorded vote declined a request to increase permitted front‑yard hard surface to allow a circular driveway at 23345 Timberlane Drive.
The application, presented by builder Alan Pearl on behalf of property owner Misha Rexon, sought permission to construct a circular driveway and sidewalk totaling 1,230 square feet, 110 square feet more than the 1,120 square‑foot maximum in section 1246.04 of the zoning code. Engineering staff recommended against variances for additional hard surface in that neighborhood because of local flooding concerns.
Commissioner Smarrigan noted the block includes seven other circular driveways across from a nearby temple and described how on‑street parking there creates practical difficulties backing out of a driveway; he said those circumstances can support a practical‑difficulty finding in some cases. Pearl said the design responds to limited parking and narrow setbacks and that his client only seeks the same driveway configuration as several neighboring homes.
Several commissioners expressed concern about setting precedent and the city’s ongoing storm‑sewer investments, with one commissioner calling the incremental extra square footage “the domino effect” that could increase impervious coverage citywide. The motion to grant the 110‑square‑foot variance was made by Miss Hecht and seconded by Miss Blue Donald; the measure failed on the roll call (2 yes, 4 no).
Vote (recorded): Mayor Burns — no; Blue Donald — no; Hecht — no; Troikit — yes; Cinnamonburg — no; Savelle — yes. The request did not pass.
The commission concluded that the applicant may pursue designs that comply with the existing hard‑surface limit or return with a different configuration; no approval was granted tonight.
