08/02/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED BOARD OF Z0NING APPEALS gIELD IN COUNCIL CHAIVYBEIZS AUGUST 02, 2007 MINiJTES 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM PRESENT: Members; M. Diver, N. Sergi, T. Kelly, R. Menser and A. Williamson. ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Building Commissioner D. Conway, and Clerk of Commissions D. Rote. Chairwoman Diver reviewed that there were 7 cases requesting 1 appeal and 9 area variances. She further advised that each board member viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes are required for approval and in addition, each case will be judged on the 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 elsewhere. The board will address each of the 7 standards when reviewing each case and every applicant was asked to address a117 factors in their presentation. II. REVIEW AND CORIZECTION OF MINUTES: N. Sergi moved to approve the July 12, 2007 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes as written. T. Kelly seconded the inotion which was unanimously approved. II. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: James Conrov; 26869 Sweetbriar Da-ive: (WRD # 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new fence. The following variance is requested: 1). A 6 inch variance for a fence higher than code permits in a front setbaclc, (code permits 30" applicant shows 36"). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (fl)). Note: fence has already been installed. Mr. Conroy the owner came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Conroy stated he was requesting a 6 inch height variance for the east side section of fencing which runs the length of his side lot. Mrs. Diver reviewed that the fence was already installed and runs along the sideyard and aslced if it is attached the existing chainlink fence. Mr. Conroy said his fence was not attached to the chainlink. Mr. Conway said his only concern is visibility. He likes to see fences 10 to 11 feet from the sidewalk to ensure vehicles have clear visibility and the applicant is only 5 feet from the sidewalk. However if the board did not feel visibility was obstructed then he would have no objections to the request. In reviewing the standards Mrs. Sergi; did not feel the fence impeded visibility. The fence will not alter or substantially affect the neighborhood. Governmental services would not be altered. The property could yield a reasonable return but the fence will discourage children from cutting through the owner's property to reach the school. The fence is 50% open and as it abuts the elementary school it is needed. Mr. Conroy said he was just replacing the existing chainlink that was there to keep the children from cutting through his yard. Mrs. Sergi; it is always assumed that the owner purchases his home with knowledge of the zoning laws. The spirit and intent of the code would be served granting the variance. Although a permit was not pulled prior to installing the fence she understands the need for the fence. Mr. Menser; had no objections to the fence.' Mrs. Diver; did not object to the fence due to the style of the fence and that it was more