04/04/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16-5429; Deborah Drossis; 23857 Mastick Road Representatives: John Lasko, attorney, 26777 Lorain Road; William & Nel Bratton, 23845 Mastick; Lea Thomas, 23971 Mastick Rd Proposal consists of a 6 foot high fence. The following variances are requested: 1. A 42 in. variance for the height of a shadow box fence in the front yard building line; code permits 30 in., applicant shows 6 ft. fence in the front building line, Section 1135.02(fl(1). 2. A variance for a shadow box fence installed in the front building line; code permits 50% open, applicant shows a shadow box fence, Section 1135.02(f)(1). Ms. Sabo abstained from discussion and voting due to a personal relationship with the applicant. Ms. Wenger stated that zoning is One Family Residence A. The property in question has an irregular configuration with access from Mastick Road by a narrow driveway with the bulk of the property located behind Mastick Road and Park Lane properties. Much of the lot is already fenced. The proposal consists of an additional 1061inear feet of 6-foot high shadowbox style fencing. While the proposed fencing is located within the front building line of the subject property, the fence proposed runs along the rear property lines of the Mastick Road property that it abuts. Mr. Lasko described the photos of the property that he submitted at the meeting. The fence is considered to be the front of the property due to the unusual shape of the property. The house sits more than 200 feet back from Mastick. The proposed fence would be the same as the existing fencing on the applicant's property, as well as their neighbors' property. Ms. Bratton was concerned that the fence section built would create an "L" shape that could trap wild life from the Metroparks. She asked that the applicant enclose their entire property to limit animals being trapped. Mr. Lasko stated that animals would be forced to go back to the Metroparks, rather than being trapped by the fence. Ms. Wenger supported the applicant due to the fact that the property shape puts them at. a disadvantage for getting a fence permit. Mr. Bratton stated that the fence along the east side of the driveway belongs to the.applicant. Mr. Papotto believed the fence should have been addressed when the gate was installed in November 2015. Mr. Lasko mentioned that the fence around the property was done in sections over a few years due to the cost of such a large project. He also believed a different type of fence would look bad next to the existing fencing. Ms. Thomas was concerned about her property value due to the fence blocking the view of the park. Mr. Raig pointed out the applicant had no control over the fencing installed by their neighbors. Mr. Allain asked why a 6 foot fence is needed when a 5 foot gate was approved and installed. Mr. Lasko countered that the top of the gate would be at the same level as the fence due to a one foot elevation of the driveway. Ms. Meredith moved, seconded by Mr. Allain, to grant as written 16-5429; Deborah Drossis; 23857 Mastick Road to build a 6 foot high fence with the following variances: 1. A 42 in. variance for the height of a shadow box fence in the front yard building line; code permits 30 in., applicant shows 6 ft. fence in the front building line, Section 1135.02(f)(1). 2. A variance for a shadow box fence installed in the front building line; code permits 50% open, applicant shows a shadow box fence, Section 1135.02(f)(1). Motion passed 3-1, Mr. Allain voted no and Ms. Sabo abstained. 16-5436: Sorin Fulea; 23246 Sharon Drive Representative: Sorin Fulea, owner 3