My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/01/1997 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1997
>
1997 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
05/01/1997 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:43 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 9:50:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1997
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/1/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
•.' • .? <br />what the distance is from the garage to the property line and the house to the north property <br />line. He estimated there is approximately 6 1/2 feet between the proposed dwelling and the <br />southernmost abutting property line, as well as 6 1/2 feet from the northern properly line. Mr. <br />Conway explained the 3 foot variance is required because there is not 15 feet of total side yard <br />and the 4 foot variance request is because there is 11 feet from this house and the abutting <br />houses on either side and 15 feet is required. Mr. Costa noted the lot is 40 feet in width and <br />the house is 27 feet wide, which leaves 13 feet left. He explained if the house is installed in <br />the middle there will be 6 1/2 feet on each side of the house but advised he did not understand <br />the variance requests. Mr. Conway clarified total side yards are required to add up to 15 feet <br />with an attached garage and a variance is required because there is only 13 feet of total side <br />yard. He continued code also requires 15 foot from edge of structure on the abutting <br />property. It was noted Mr. Dunlap has 11 foot on one side and 11 foot 2 inches on the other, <br />thus a variance is needed for distance between structures. Mr. Hamilton, who abuts this <br />property on the north side, explained that this two story proposed dwelling ivfriuges on his <br />privacy and there is also a safety concern, as a fire truck would not fit between the homes. He <br />believed the code was developed for a reason and should be followed, as he did not want to <br />relinquish his rights to allow someone to build a house. Mr. Czuchran, who lives behind the <br />proposed structure, voiced concems about the integrity of the neighborhood aud the setback. <br />Mr. Duulap advised the rear line of the house would be staggered between the neighboring <br />homes. Mr. Maloney wondered if this house is on top of the city waterline. Mr. Conway <br />advised that is an engineering issue and is not related to the zoning code. Mr. Koberna <br />believed this water line wou.ld be behind the existing houses, which means it is further away <br />from this proposed house. The neighbors had concerns about the flooding as there is standing <br />water in the ditches after a heavy rains for a period of time. Mr. Dunlap explained most of the <br />lots in this neighborhood are forty foot wide and it is not u.ncommon to build on a 40 foot <br />wide lot. Mr. Costa believed the house should be built according to code as there is a reason <br />for the code. Mr. Purper explained when the lots were first laid out at a forty foot width the <br />code was different. Law Director Gareau explained the whole purpose of the board of zoning <br />appeals is to grant variances to individuals that the board deems qualified because of the <br />circtunstances. It was noted if the house was nairowed by 8 feet, and the specifications of the <br />code were met, the house would be only 19 feet wide, which is nearly impossible to build. <br />Mr. Costa explained he spent a considerable amount of money to control the flood.ing on his <br />lot, but is still flooding. He noted this neighborhood is being destroyed for the sake of money <br />and the code should be followed at any cost. Mr. Gomersall wondered if Mr. Costa meant the <br />owner of the property should maintain tlii's vacant lot and continue paying the taxes. Mr. <br />Costa advised he is a tax payer that believes the code should be followed. The Law Director <br />clarified the purpose of tlus board is to give relief from following the code. He further advised <br />it is the residents right to explain to the board why the variances are inappropriate and if the <br />residents object to the boards decision they can appeal the decision through the courts. Mr. <br />Gareau further advised the hearing is needed because Mr. Dunlap does not believe he can <br />build a house on this lot according to code, and thus is requesting a_variance. Mr. Dunlap <br />advised this proposed dwelling is similar to recently bu.ilt homes on Decker. Mr. Miller <br />believed the two homes on Decker are inconsistent with the rest of the homes on the street. <br />He wondered if Mr. Dunlap was willing to build a home on this Porter Road lot that is - <br />consistent or similar in design of the rest of the homes on Porter. Mr. Koberna explained this <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.