11/12/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Stotz, Mr. Ungerer, Mr. Clark, and Councilman Nashar. Mr.. Gomersall asked the builder to give his presentation first. Mr. G. Matheou stated that he explained to planniug commission that he wanted to split off the lot and build a house on the vacant property. Mrs. Gasper could no longer maintain the land. Mr. Matheou stated that he did not have a councilman to speak on his behalf as Mr. Stotz did. and wondered how there could be objections to building a new house in an older neighborhood. He explained how the lot split would have more benefits than not. He also stated that he had received a phone call from Mr. Stotz, the neighbor who objected the most, who stated that he opposed the building a home on the split off lot because it would depreciate his property. He did not state what his sources were for the depreciation prediction. He just went on to explain that if a house were built on that property it would ruin his view. Mr. Matheou noted that because of the position of the house, the only view spoiled would be from Mr. Stotz's back yard which is a view of the wall of I-480. Mr. Matheou told him they would be building a house like the one they are building on Cambridge Crossings and Mr. Stotz acknowledged that he had been in that house, since the doors were not locked. Mr. Stotz then stated that Mr. Matheou would be in for surprises if he tried to build on that land. He maintained that the house would improve the neighborhood, this proposal would keep Miss. Gasper from having to maiutain the land, and the city would get added tax revenue from the house. He wondered if Mr. Stotz wanted to buy this lot and sell it himself later on. He is willing to change anytlung that the board would like him to. He asked the board to considered zoning issues, and not issues of a personal nature. Miss Gasper viewed the modified plans. Mr. Gomersall noted that the house would be 5 foot from the line. Law Director Gareau advised that the issue is not where the house would be, it was if block `B" should be subdivided as a lot since it does not conform to the zoning code. If the variance were granted to split the lot, they could come back with any house plans. Plauving Commission had recommended denying the variance. Mr. Matheou believed that this was because of the opposition. The board had received a petition with 25 signatures objecting to the split. Miss Gasper submitted a petition in favor of the split with 45 signatures. Mr. Stotz maintained that there was more than 25 signatures. It was clarified that there were 42 signatures on the objecting petition. Miss Gasper stated that she had talked to several neighbors on Sutton Drive, one of whom had been informed that this house would have to be as high as a tower to fit on the lot, and some of the neighbors signed her petition thus nullifying their first signatures. The Sutton Drive residents can not see this home, but they had to receive a notice by law. She got almost everyone to sign on Sutton Drive who had signed the original petition. Miss Gasper stated that Mr. Stotz had told her that he would be very vehement in his opposition not only for the reasons stated by Mr. Matheou but also because he had been bom in a rural area and he like the wide open spaces. She stated that North Olmsted is not a rural community, and she does not believe that she has to maintain a lot merely for his enjoyment. She believed that he could have moved to several rural communities surrounding North Olmsted. At the planning commission meeting, she had been made to feel that she had fewer rights, since she had only moved to North Olmsted less than two years ago. She believed that she should have the same rights. She would like to sell the lot, to get back some of the expense she had put into the house and landscaping. For her the lot is useless, but a lot would have use for some else. She believed the house would be a benefit, and would not devalue the neighborhood. Mr. Ungerer viewed this as a non-issue since it is her land she should have a right to sell it. Mr. Stotz pointed out his lot on the site plan, and explained that the plan does not show that he has an enclosed patio and a wooden d'eck surrounding it, so he is much closer than this plans shows. It was clarified that the lot was not deep enough to have a proper rear setback and the 127 foot depth should have been 135 feet deep, and there is not sufficient area for the lot. He maintained that if the corner of the house is to be 5 foot off the lot line, it would be in the area of the swale which is almost 10 feet wide. Again, Mr. Gareau stated that the house is not the issue. The members did get Mr. Stotz's letter to the planning commission expressing his major concerns. He stated that when he put on an addition at another location, he talked to his neighbors first, Miss Gasper never mentioned this to him even when they 6