08.15.22 MEETING MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council Monday, August 15, 2022 Page 5 I will point out that up until last year, there was in fact a 6' chain link fence along that property line that was installed by the owner of the house who was previously on the property. It was quite frankly a dump. It was torn down. My neighbors built a beautiful new home. I tore that fence down. It was way over on my property line. I tore the fence down to give access to the construction people when they were building their home. In conclusion, I would like to say, this is really a Code discrepancy that needs to be addressed. Why is a 6' board -on -board fence allowed which in my opinion is an eyesore? It obstructs the view which both of our families enjoy where a 5' chain link fence is not allowed. Frankly my neighbors should not be penalized for this discrepancy. It should be corrected. My neighbor is not looking to exceed a 6' height which is allowed for board -on -board. They only want to go a foot above that. That should be allowed. A chain link fence would preserve the visual appearance of my property as well as my neighbor's. I will point out that at the zoning meeting back in July, two of three voting members were in fact in support of the variance. The dissenting voting member felt that the zoning review board should follow the legal interpretation of the Code as written. To that, I have to say, if that's the view from the board, why do you even have a variance meeting? Just follow the Code as written and get rid of it. The purpose of the zoning review board should be to evaluate citizens' reasonable requests and allow those that are in the best interest to the property owners, i.e., my neighbor and myself, and allow those that are in the best interest. As such, considering these points, I respectfully request that you approve the variance that my neighbor has asked for. Thank you. Council President Schutt stated, thank you for your comments. Are there any other comments related to this appeal? Ms. Calta asked, may I make a few comments before you consider a motion? Council President Schutt replied, sure. Ms. Calta stated, Council should have received a memo from me outlining the framework of the legal position of what the Board of Zoning Appeals does and what this Council on an appeal from the BZA is required to do. It is a legal analysis. The legal opinion is that your review similar to the Board of Zoning Appeals, they are allowed to grant exceptions to the Code. What that means is under certain circumstances, if there are unique circumstances or what are called practical difficulties and this is a standard set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court, not by me, not by Joe Schmo, but by the Ohio Supreme Court and it's been well settled for many many years. The decision came out in the `80's. There are guidelines to look for to establish whether or not practical difficulties are present enough to justify an exception to the Code. It's meant to be flexible. If we just interpret our Code and we never allow any exceptions, then that's probably not really a fair way to interpret our Code. Oftentimes you will see properties that have ARK topographical issues. They can't meet the Code. You are supposed to look at it pretty holistically and I think when you read the Minutes from the BZA, you will see that the dissenting