05/05/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF ZONIlVG APPEALS MINUTES - MAY 5, 1994 CORRECT'fD Chairman Gomersall called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: T. Koberna, J. Maloney, W. Purper, and R. GomersalL Absent: M. Boyle. Also Present: Law Director Gareau, Building Commissioner Conway, and Clerk of Commissions Oring. W. Purper moved to approve the minutes of the Apri16, 1994 meeting, seconded by J. Maloney, and unauunously approved. Chairman Gomersall advised all present that there were 4 members present and it would take 3 affirmative votes to approve a request. He further stated that each of the board members present had viewed the premises involved in each case and each case would be judge on the physical situation peculiar to itsel£ In no way is a judgment rendered consider to be a general policy judgnaent affecting properties a.nd like situations elsewhere. Emil R. Churchin, 6111 Stafford Dr. Request for variance (1123.12. Request 33 square foot variance for area exceeding 2% of the rear yard which is the maximum area allowed for a shed. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(d)2. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Churchin and his neighbors, Mr. aud Mrs. Merutka. Mr. Churchin explained that this would be a gazebo shaped shed to store lawn equ.ipment, etc. Mrs. Merutka, who lives d.irectly in the reax, objected to an oversize shed and believed that if he received a variance their other neighbors would want one a1so. Mr. Merutka stated that Mr. Churchin did not keep up his yard and did not get a permit for a 2 foot deep pond that he installed. He pointed out that this variance is 50% over what is allowed. Mr. Churchin responded that this was au average size shed, and because he has a covered patio the amount of area he has is limited. He stated that because of the gazebo shape it appears bigger and he noted that the neighbors at 6132 Somerset have tlae same type and size shed. Regarding the pond, he had called the Build.ing Department when he put in the pond five years ago and was told that no permit or fence was needed. The enclosed patio was installed without a permit a1so, but the building inspector told him it was constructed properly. He is going to mstall a fence. Other neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Dye, Mrs. Traval, Mr. and Mrs. Wollmann, were sworn in at this time. Mr. Dye asked if the lot would be surveyed to make sure the shed was placed properly and wondered where the line was. Mr. Churchin stated that when the fence is installed, the survey pins will be spotted and after the fence is installed they will only be able to see the top of the shed. The neighbors all agreed that this large a shed would be u.nsightly a.nd would set a precedent. Mrs. Dye asked who had to maintain the fence. W. Gomersall clarified that the fence was not the issue before the board. Mr. Conway advised that if a neighbor claimed that a fence was on his property, it would be the neighbor's duty to get a survey to prove that it