Laserfiche WebLink
Note: Lot 237-12-011 has a dwelling; lot 237-12-012 has an accessory structure with no <br />dwelling. Per Cuyahoga County records lots have not been joined. <br />Mr. Ditmore the leasing renter and Mr. Barrett a neighbor each came forward to be sworn in and <br />address the request. Mr. Ditmore said there are two separate lots and the building in question is <br />on a separate lot from the home. Loolcing at the site you can not tell that there are two separate <br />lots and the existing Uuilding (16'x 20', 12 foot high) had a tool shed attached which he tried to <br />fix tluee times but it needed to be replaced. He started to replace the tool shed (7.6' x 20', 12 <br />foot high) but was stopped and told he was required to have a building permit. He applied for a <br />peimit and when the inspector came to the site said a permit could not be issued without power <br />of attorney which he received. Then he found out that the building was non-conforming and the <br />shed could not be replaced without a variance as the new tool shed would be higher than what <br />the existing tool shed. The 12 foot height is for a loft in the shed and would slant downward to a <br />10 foot overhang. Mr. Barrett a neighbor attested that he was familiar with the property as he <br />was friends with the original owner's son and the building was a greenhouse and plants were <br />sold out of it. The home and Uuilding were always in the positions they are now and he never <br />lcnew there were two lots as the site layout looks lilce any other lot along Clague Road. <br />Mr. Conway said that years ago it was not uncommon for someone to own two lots build upon <br />both of them and never consolidate them. However when an owner replaces or repairs the non- <br />confonning structure more than 50% which is the case the current zoning codes must be met. <br />The owner can consolidate the lots and eliminate the need for a special permit. However the <br />building would still require a variance as sheds are not allowed to be more than 400 sq ft and the <br />current shed is 480 sq ft and over 9 feet high. Mr. Ditmore said he is leasing to own and once he <br />owns the two lots he will consolidate them. However the owner of both lots has a separate <br />mortgage on each lot so it can not be consolidated at this time. Mr. O'Malley advised that <br />although the existing structure is grandfathered once it is altered 50% or more it must be brought <br />into what is required by current codes. The board is being asked to grant a special permit to alter <br />a non conforming building as well as a variance from the code as the structure will still not meet <br />today's code requireinents. If the lots were consolidated it would eliminate the special permit <br />but the height and size would still not meet code requirements. <br />A brief discussion ensued regarding the existing building having doors or if the old shed had <br />doors. It was found that the existing structure had a man-door on the front side and the baclc has <br />a doorway opening which led into the attached shed which he replaced. Mrs. Sergi questioned <br />how the main cinderUloclc building was being used. Mr. Ditmore said it was currently used for <br />storage, however it is his intent to clean it out fix it up and use it. Mr. Conway cautioned the <br />applicant that if his intent was to have a commercial use in the building he would need to discuss <br />what is required by code with the Building Department prior to any work starting. Mr. Ditmore <br />said the structure is not any larger then it ever was just the shed is higher than the original shed. <br />Mr. O'Malley advised the board to place a condition in their motion which would require the <br />owner consolidate his lots within 2 years or the new owner to consolidate the lots upon purchase. <br />Mrs. Bellido felt that as the building is pre-existing and the owner is just trying to keep up with <br />what is needed to inalce sure it doesn't fall apart and remain the same she did not object to the <br />request. Mrs. Sergi did not believe the cinderbloclc portion of the building would ever fall and if <br />the owner constructed a shed on the parcel which houses the home no variances would be <br />required. Mrs. Diver felt placing the condition that the lots be consolidated within 2 years or the <br />shed would have to be reinoved would be sufficient. Ms. Rudolph did not feel the peace, safety, <br />health traffic, morals, nuisances or welfare of the neighbors or neighborhood would be <br />5