My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/05/2018 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2018
>
2018 Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
11/05/2018 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:45:57 PM
Creation date
1/24/2019 9:30:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2018
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/5/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
added the shadowbox description and the 10 foot setback from the right of way to the motion. <br />Mr. Papotto pointed out that the previous request was for a 72 inch high fence and a 42 inch <br />variance was requested. <br />1VIr. Raig moved, seconded by 1VIr. Mackey, to approve the following variances as amended <br />for 18-12568; Timberous & Brittany Milhous; 4586 Michael Avenue set back from the <br />right-of-way 10 feet: <br />1. A 30 in. variance for a 5 ft. high fence constructed on a corner lot in the side yard; code <br />permits 30 in., applicant shows 60 in., Section 1135.02(D)(3). <br />2. A variance for a board on boarcl (shadowbox) fence constructed on a corner lot in the <br />side yard; code requires 50% open, applicant shows a board on boarel fence, Section <br />1135.02(D)(3). <br />Motion passed 4-0. <br />18-12621; Martv & Barb Stasiuk; 6085 Fitch Road <br />Representatives: Marty, Barb and Hannah Stasiuk; Kevin Stockdale, 5996 Louis Drive <br />Proposal consists of animal shelters. Property is zoned A-One Family Residence. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A 2 ft. and 5 ft. variance for side yard setback for two animal shelters; code requires 10 ft. <br />side yard setback, applicant shows 8 ft. and 5 ft., respectively, Section 1135.02(E)(1). <br />2. A variance for two animal shelters located within the required 200 ft. of a dwelling; code <br />requires a minimum separation of 200 ft. from any dwelling on an adjacent lot, applicant <br />shows less than 200 ft., Section 1135.02(E)(1). <br />Mr. Aspery said the applicant is proposing to retain two existing animal shelters on their 33,768 <br />square foot lot on Fitch Road. The zoning code requires that shelters for domestic farm animals <br />be located within rear yard areas so that no part of the structure is located within ten feet of any <br />side or rear lot line. The applicant shows their goat pen five feet from the northern property line <br />and the chicken coop eight feet from the southern property line. Code also requires that shelters <br />not be within 200 feet of a dwelling on any adjacent lot, whereas the two existing structures <br />show various setback distances under this required distance. <br />Mr. Stasiuk said the chicken coop was built about ten years ago. He believed it was far enough <br />from the neighboring houses. The structure is safe and sturdy. The goat pen was built about a <br />year and a half ago for his daughter's miniature goats that she raises for 4-H. Mr. Stasiuk said he <br />asked about the requirements and he heard the distances needed to be 175 feet and the posts <br />needed to be installed every five feet. He hasn't had any complaints, the area is dry and the <br />animals are quiet. Hannah Stasiuk said they use the chickens for eggs and she bought the goats <br />herself. They are very healthy and do not smell or make a lot of noise. Barb Stasiuk said they <br />checked the ordinances for animal requirements and designed the building to be aesthetically <br />pleasing to the neighbors. The animals are considered part of their family. Mr. Stockdale is the <br />neighbor to the rear of the applicant's property. He is pleased with the setup of the property and <br />thinks everything is well maintained. Mr. Aspery said there was not a complaint, the distances <br />are close enough and the neighbors are not affected, so he was in favor of the variances. Ms. <br />Rambo-Ackerman added that the property was cited during the property maintenance sweeps. <br />Mr. Mackey believed the applicant came well prepared. Mr. Papotto thought the applicant could
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.