Roaming Shores board denies variance for proposed lakeside garage

The Roaming Shores Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request for a large garage/storage structure after residents, the village association and the board weighed medical hardship claims against zoning standards and association covenants. The board voted 0–4 to deny the request at the meeting; the denial followed legal objections and concerns about precedent.

The applicant, who identified himself as Mark, asked the board to approve a front-setback variance that he said was needed for accessibility. "We're asking for size variance... 13 ft is the very smallest that meets ADA standards for a garage," he told the board, saying the change would let him and family members with mobility limits access vehicles and medical appointments without risking snow-related falls.

Jim Fell, a registered nurse who said he has more than 50 years of clinical experience, gave medical testimony supporting the request. "With his condition ... no way should he be out there shoveling snow or trying to operate a snow blower," Fell said, urging the board to consider the health and safety implications of denying the variance.

Neighbors and several residents also spoke in favor. Chris (address given at the hearing) and others said lack of storage forces boats and trailers to remain outside and that a garage would reduce neighborhood clutter. Multiple speakers said they had submitted letters of support.

Opposition came from the Roaming Shores Association and its counsel, David King. King argued the proposed 3,959-square-foot structure was not an accessory garage as defined by the village code but functionally a storage facility or commercial use. "It's not a garage, it's a storage facility," King told the board, urging that a use variance'—which requires a much higher showing of unnecessary hardship under Ohio law'would be required.

King and other speakers also raised procedural and evidentiary issues: incomplete or late plans in the hearing packet, possible under-notification of adjacent property owners, and the association's covenants that, the association says, prohibit accessory structures without a principal dwelling on the same lot. Marie Kaufman, who identified herself as a member of the association board, said the association opposes the variance and warned that approval could open the door to additional exceptions.

Village staff and the zoning administrator told the board the proposed building's footprint exceeded customary accessory limits. An official noted the roughly 3,959-square-foot proposed building compared with an accessory-building allowance the staff cited in the packet (about 200 square feet), highlighting the scale of the variance requested.

Board members pressed for clarity on utilities, setbacks and whether the proposal would set precedent. After a brief procedural discussion, the board took a roll-call vote. The board recorded four "no" votes (the presiding member and three fellow board members) and denied the variance application.

The hearing record shows the board outlined options for the applicant going forward, including working with the village and association if they seek a change to ordinances or association rules. There was no formal direction to staff for additional review and the meeting adjourned after the vote.