05/04/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C - CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF ZiDNING APPEALS HEI,D IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 4, 2006 MINUTES ?. ROLL CALI.: Cha.irman Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PRESENT: Members J. Maloney, J. Burke, M. Diver and T. Kelly ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Building Commissioner D. Conway and Clerk of Commissions D. Rote. ABSE1oTT: Member N. Sergi (on maternity leave) Chairman Maloney reviewed that there vvere 13 cases requesting 51 variances on the docket He fiuuthher advised that each board member had viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes are required for approval and in addition, each case wouid be judged on fhe physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsevvhere. Chairman Maloney announced that Tuesday Moming withdrew their variance request and ICI Paints requested postponement u.ntil June 01, 2006 BZA meeting. North Olmsted Laser Wash is also withdrawn from the docket as variances are not required. U. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: J. Burke moved to approve the Boaral of Zonang Appeals min0tes dated April. 6, 2005, as written. M. Diver seconded the motion, which was unamimously approved. 'H. RESIDENTIAI. APPEALS AND ItEQITESTS: 1. Parikh & Meeoal Padmesh;, 4156 Lvdeate Drive: (VVRD # 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a shed. The following variances are requested: l. An 8 foot variance for rear yard setback (storage shed too close to rear property line), (code requires 10 ft, applicant shows 2 ft), section (1135.02 (D4)). 2. A S square foot variance for a shed lazger than code allows, (code permits 91 sq ft,' applicant shows 96 sq ft), section (1135.02 (D1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (D4)) and (1135.02 (D1)). Mr. & Mrs. Padnnesh came forwazd to be swom in and address tlne request. Mrs. Padmesh advised that there is an existing fence which is not mn the property line and tliey tried to align the shed with their neighbors shed. To place the small shed 10-feet from the rear property Iine would piace the shed in the middle of their backyazd. Board members voiced that they were concerned that the shed could not be maintaunied if placed 2-feet from the property line and questioned if the shed could be placed 5-feet in from the property line. Mr. Padmesh suggested that he would order an 8' x 8' shed and woutd be witlang to move the shed 5 feet in from the rear property Iine. Mr. Maloney advised that if the applicant placed the shed inward 5 feet to make sure the shed could be maintained the board would have no objections and by installing am 8' x 8' shed the 5-foot variance for shed size is not required. J. Burke moved to grant Parikh & Meenal Padmesh of 4156 Lydgate Drive their request for eariance (1123e12), which consists of a shed and that the foRowing variance is granted as aanended and agreed upon: 1. A 5 foot variance for rear yard setback (storage shed too close to rear property line), (code requires 10 ft, applicant shows 5ft). Which is in violation of Ord.