12/17/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

there are seven photos which are being shown to the board members. He took the photos from both inside looking out and outside looking back so the board could see the debris, woods and view from the apartment garage. Mrs. Reed feels she should be allowed to leave the fence as is. Mr. Reed said the fence as constructed does no harm anyone as there are no neighbors that abut the fence. Mrs. Sabo noted that there were abutting neighbors as the residential apartment complex is the abutting owner. Mr. Reed said no apartment dwellers could see the fence from their apartments due to a garage which was the only structure abutting the fence. Mrs. Sabo questioned how long Mrs. Reed owned her home and she said she owned her home for 50 years. Mr. Mitchell said he did not recommend granting the variance as it would set a precedence. His report included two separate applications both of which had fences installed wrong one by owner the other a contractor and both fences were corrected. A search of street and computer records could find no case record of a variance request to lceep a fence improperly installed. The applicant has the option of installing a finished side along the abutting owners' side or removing every other board and placing them on the opposite side to create a shadow box fence both of which are allowed by code. The owners' application states the total cost of the finished fence is $500.00 so installing a solid side would be less and creating a shadow box would be no additional costs. Mrs. Sabo asked if Mrs. Reed and her grandson knew the fence was installed wrong and aslced if it was Mrs. Reed signature on the homeowner's exception form and Mrs. Reed said yes. Mr. Mitchell reiterated the owners' options for having a good neighbor fence. Mr. Reed said he understood fixing the fence if there were neighbors but it is the back of a garage and debris. Mr. Mitchell said the apartment complex is the owner's neighbor. Mrs. Reed said she is aslcing for a variance to ease her situation which is such that the fence is not visible to any neighbor the closest thing is a garage and a debris field. Mrs. Sabo said the fence was not built to code regardless if the abutting propert,y is an apartment or residential home. Mrs. Reed said if it was a North Olmsted resident behind her it would have met code but it abuts Olmsted Township. Mrs. Sabo advised that it was irrelevant whether the abutting owner is in North Olmsted or not. She noted that she saw soine debris but felt it wouldn't prohibit the owner from installing a solid fence or altering the existing fence to be a shadowbox style. Mrs. Reed aslced if she could malce the other side a shadow box and her side remain as is and Mr. Mitchell said code requires both sides to be the same. Mr. Meder questioned beyond visual aesthetics what issue would the fence create as installed and Mr. Mitchell said allowing a fence to be installed against code sets a precedence for other owners to do the same. Mr. Meder felt the only issue the current applicant's fence created was purely aesthetic. A brief review of the photos in the applicant's camera a discussion as to who installed the rear section of fence and what would and wouldn't bee seen froin the abutting property ensue. An area photo was also used to identify were Mr. Reeds photos were taken from. The installation dates of the conforming fences along both side yards were discussed. Mrs. Sabo said the fact that there are no neighbors does not exclude ownezs from following code which requires the good side of the fence face the neighbors regardless if it is a messy apartment complex outside North Olmsted boundaries. The-applicant sated 2