09/03/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. & Mrs. Staffeld the homeowners were sworn in. Mrs. Staffeld said the recently purchased family home has required a lot of upgrading and has a single car garage. They are landlords to three additional properties in town which requires additional yard and mechanical equipment and a single car garage is not enough storage area. They have to store items on the back patio which also needs to be replaced. The code permits 120 square feet for a shed and they would like to construct a 160 square foot shed which provides an additional 4 feet to accommodate yard and mechanical equipment. They have two cars and neither car can fit into the garage that can not be enlarged. Photos of existing conditions, type of shed and letters from abutting neighbors were submitted stating they had no objections to the applicants shed. The back porch needs to be replaced and the items stored outdoors moved indoors to improve the aesthetics of the yard. Mr. Mitchell said the building department did not object to the homeowners requesting an additional 40 square feet of storage. He asked if the three rental properties owned in North Olmsted were registered as rental properties and Mrs. Staffeld said all three rentals were registered with the building department. Mr. O'Malley advised the board to include the style of shed in their motion if it was their intent to grant the variance. Mrs. Bellido said the pipe being laid out to show the dimensions and location of the shed helped her to visualize the amount of space needed and the yard loolcs to accommodate the shed. Mrs. Sergi agreed the shed could fit the lot and due to having a one car garage which can not be enlarged she did not object to the variance. The style of shed will enhance the yard and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lopez voiced his concern over granting variances as there are other homes in the neighborhood with sheds which looks unsightly and adversely affects the appearance of the entire neighborhood. Mrs. Sergi felt that the size of the lot and garage warranted the size of shed being requested as the owners don't really have any other option as the home nor the garage can be expanded. Mrs. Diver said the owners being landlords is outside the boards consideration as that is a business matter which could be conducted in a retail district. Mrs. Rudolph said she understood the need to limit variances but the owner's predicament can not be resolved without a variance. As a homeowner with a single car garage she understands the need for a shed because if a car is parked in the garage nothing else fits including standard yard tools which can not be stored indoors. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to grant Ross & Susan Staffeld of 4638 Georgette Ave a 40 square foot variance for shed larger than code allows; code permits 120 sq ft and 160 sq ft is shown which is in violation of section 1135.02 (d)(1). Roll call; Sergi, Bellido, Rudolph - yes, Diver, Lopez -no, the variance was granted 3-2. Ro2er James; 24908 Mitchell Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a screened in room and the following variance is required: A 16 foot rear yard variance for residence too close to rear property line; code requires 50 ft and 34 ft is shown which is in violation of section 1135.08 (a) • A special permit to add to a non-conforming building 1165.02 (b). • A variance from Section 1165.02 as existing rear yard setback is 46 ft and will decrease to 34 ft. Mr. James the homeowner and Mr. Koly with Champion Windows were sworn in. Mr. James said he would like to have his existing concrete slab roofed and screened in so he can enjoy his baclcyard. Mr. Koly said the roof and screened walls would be no larger than the existing slab and the backyard is enclosed with a 6 foot high privacy fence. The existing slab which has partial 2