Board of Adjustment unanimously approves variance for Beavercreek‑area home addition

The Summit County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously Dec. 14 to grant a variance that will allow an addition to a nonconforming house that sits near Beavercreek.

Ray Milliner, principal planner, told the board the applicant, James Joseph Willis, seeks to reduce the Eastern Summit County development code’s 100‑foot stream setback to 10 feet so he can add a second story within the existing footprint. Milliner said the house was built before current setback rules and that staff’s review found the application “meets the minimum requirements for a variance,” recommending approval with the findings, conclusions and conditions in the staff report.

Willis testified the house—built in the 1960s—has structural problems, that part of the roof had started to cave in after winter storms, and that the goal is “to bring this thing up to code and make it safe.” He said the project would remain within the current foundation footprint and not increase encroachment toward the creek.

Commissioner Susan Kutcher raised safety and fairness questions, asking whether the owner could lift and move the structure back 10 feet and whether the county should review how setback rules apply to small, platted lots. She said she was concerned about a small deck close to the water and about mold, mildew and flooding risks. Milliner responded that moving a house would be outside the board’s authority in a variance decision and emphasized that building‑department review and a required septic‑system update are central to protecting Beavercreek from pollution.

A board member moved to approve “the variance for construction within the year‑round setback and setback from the year‑round stream according to the findings of facts, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval” for the James Willis application; another board member seconded. The chair confirmed affirmative votes, including an affirmative from Susan Kutcher and others, and declared the variance granted by unanimous vote.

The approval is conditioned on the findings and the conditions in the staff report; Milliner noted that any building‑permit review could require foundation, footing or septic upgrades to meet current codes. The board emphasized that ordinary repairs could be handled by the building department without a variance, but that the requested second‑story addition required the variance because it alters the building’s form.

The applicant thanked the board at the meeting’s close. The application file and the staff report contain the specific conditions and findings of approval.