My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/12/2007 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2007
>
2007 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
07/12/2007 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:46:51 PM
Creation date
1/25/2019 5:23:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2007
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience, of neighboring property or creating a nuisance. <br />The proposed use will not comply with other provisions or standards specified in the code. <br />Mrs. Sergi voiced a concern with the two additions looking like additions and the rooflines not <br />matching. Mr. Collins reviewed the roofline and said that foundation work would be completed <br />at the same time the addition is added. Board members voiced that they had no objections to the <br />request. <br />R. Menser moved to approve Karen Smith of 24438 Rosita Lane her request for variance <br />(1123.12) which consists of an addition and the following variance and special permit is <br />granted: <br />• A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02), existing rear setback is <br />only 38.6'). <br />1. A.19.6 foot variance for a residence to close to rear property line, (code requires 50', <br />applicant shows 30.6'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.08 (a)). T. Kelly <br />seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />5. Patricia Sontempo; 23093 Clifford Dr. (WRD# 2) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of new detached garage and the following <br />variance is requested: 1. A 4 foot variance for a garage too close to side property line, (code <br />requires, 5', applicant shows 1'). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (C2)). Note: Old garage has been removed <br />but 12'x 8' slab remains in place. <br />Ms. Boritempo the owner and Ms. O'Dee abutting neighbor each came forward to be sworn in <br />and address the request. Ms. Bontempo reviewed that the existing garage was removed and she <br />would like to replace the garage with a new 20' x 20'x 15' high two car garage. The garages in <br />the neighborhood are set in the same manor 1 foot off the property lines. If the garage is moved <br />inward 5 feet the driveway would also have to be removed and reconfigured to align with the <br />door. "Ms. O'Dee said she had no objections to the garage as moving the garage would alter the <br />character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Diver read aloud Mr. Conway's memo which sated the <br />building department objected to the variance request. If the building caught on fire it could not <br />be contained within the property limits nor could the structure be maintained without trespassing <br />onto the neighbor's property. He requested that if the variance is granted the applicant be <br />required to use 5/8" fire retardant drywall installed on the interior of the framing to a point <br />within 5' of the property line and to reduce the setback to a point in which the structure could be <br />maintained. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the existing slab and footers would be used for the new <br />garage. Ms. Bontempo said due to the poor condition of the existing slab and footers they would <br />have to be removed and replaced. Mrs. Diver questioned why the garage couldn't be moved if <br />the slab was not being reused. Ms. Bontempo felt that if the garage was moved it would take up <br />half her property and rebuilding in the same location would keep the neighborhood uniform. <br />Mrs. Sergi said that as the majority of garages in the neighborhood were 1 car garages building a <br />2 car garage was not maintaining the character of the neighborhood. The garage wall being 1' <br />off the property line would also make it impossible to maintain your garage and grass without <br />trespassing onto the neighbor's yard. Mr. Conway said his main concern was being able to <br />maintain the structure and yard without trespassing. Mrs. Diver believed that the property could <br />yield a reasonable return without the variance. The variance is not substantial but the proximity <br />in which the 4' places the strueture is a significant intrusion upon the neighbor's lot. The <br />character of the neighborhood may or may not be affected. On one hand the location is in <br />keeping with the neighborhood but the size of the garage is not in character of the neighborhood. <br />Governmental services would not be affected. The spirit and intent would not be served and <br />justice served granting the variance. Mrs. Sergi felt that the owner needed relief from the code <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.