10/02/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 02, 2008 ROLL CALL Chairwoman Diver called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in Council Chambers. Present: Maureen Diver, Nancy Sergi, Laura Bellido, Jennifer Rudolph, Robert Menser arrived Staff: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Assistant Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote Mrs. Diver advised all board members viewed each site and three votes were required for approval. Each case is 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. Applicants were asked to address all seven area variance standards noted. REVIEW AND CORItECTION OF MINU'TES Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to approve the September 4, 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes as written, which was approved 5-0. 1tESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: Kathleen Salis; 27511 Marquette Blvd (Ward 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a fence The following variances are requested: 1. An 18 inch variance for a fence within a neighbor's 50 foot setback on a corner lot, code permits 30", applicant shows 48". Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02 (F1). Note BZA tabled 8/7/08. Mrs. Salis the homeowner came forward to be sworn in and dress the board. Mrs. Salis said the request is for an 18 inch variance for a 4 foot scalloped fence. She does not believe that the fence will create a safety issue as the existing trees are larger and denser than the proposed fence. Mrs. Sergi asked if the fence spacing would be 50% open and if the trees would remain or be removed. Mrs. Salis said the existing trees would remain and the easement would be within the 50% open fence. Mr. Mitchell said that the fence was shown going through the easement area which is not against building codes but more of a civil matter. Ms. Rudolph asked if the Uuilding department talces into account possible safety issues when variances are sought. Mr. Mitchell said the height and location of the proposed fence is very flat and the height of the fence could be a safety concern. Mr. O'Malley said that the openness, height and location of the fence were all factors to be talcen into consideration by the board. Mrs. Diver aslced if the board could request the fence be moved inward away from the easement area to ensure vehicle safety. Mr. O'Malley said that placement of the fence could be addressed by the board. Mrs. Bellido said that she was at the site and maneuvered in and out of the neighbor's driveway and felt that if the fence was 50% open and scalloped there would be no safety issues. Mrs. Sergi said that she was at the site three times and she was concerned that the trees and a 4 foot high fence would impede a driver's view. If the fence was moved inward more would eliminate the safety issues. Ms. Rudolph agreed with Mrs. Sergi. Mr. Menser felt that vehicle visibility was not an issue due to the placement of the home, existing trees and angle of the street. He felt installing a fence was mute as it would not affect visibility. Mrs. Diver said while at the site a vehicle took the turn very fast and placement of the fence would malce a difference. Mrs. Sergi