Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />1VIEETING MINLTTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Ms. Sergi called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in.Council Chambers. <br />Present: Nancy Sergi, Maureen Diver, Jennifer Rudolph, Laura Bellido, Alfredo Lopez <br />Staff: Law Director Michael Gareau Jr., Planning & Development Director Kimberly <br />Wenger, Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerlc of Commissions Donna Rote <br />REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF 1VIINUTES <br />Mrs. Diver requested the minutes of August 5, 2010 be amended to reflect that she requested to <br />see detailed development plans from the mall if the time extension was not for what was <br />previously approved. Mr. Gareau advised the board as to how they would approve amended <br />minutes. <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to approve the August 5, 2010 minutes <br />subject to Mrs. Diver's amended request which was approved 5-0. <br />RESIDEliTTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />Scott Dusenbury; 4162 Canterbury Road: <br />Request for variance; proposal consists of a fence and the following variance is requested: <br />1. An 18" height variance for a fence higher than code allows within neighbors 50 foot setback <br />on a corner lot; code permits 30", applicant shows 48", Section 1135.02( fl(2). <br />2. A variance for a fence less than 50% open within neighbors 50' setback on a corner lot; code <br />requires 50%, applicant shows less than 50%, Section 1135.02(fl(1). <br />Mr. Dusenbury was sworn in and presented his request to install a 4 foot solid stained wood <br />fence to protect and restrain his dog in the yard and protect the children who pass by his corner <br />lot. Building Commissioner Mitchell questioned the exact distance of the fence from the <br />sidewallc, which will be 14 feet from the inside face of the sidewalk and reviewed the good <br />neighbor requirements which the applicant agreed to adhere to. A shadowbox style fence would <br />meet the 50% open however it would not provide the separation and protection for the dog or <br />school children the applicant is seelcing. There were different opinions of board members <br />regarding the style of fencing that should be installed but it was agreed that the placement would <br />not impede the line of sight of vehicles nor adversely affect the neighborhood. Board members <br />had no objections to the 4 foot fence height but remained split about the style of fence to install. <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido to grant Scott Dusenbury of 4162 <br />Canterbury Road the following variances: <br />1. An 18" height variance for a fence higher than code allows within neighbors 50 foot <br />setbaclc on a corner lot; code permits 30", applicant shows 4811, Section 1135.02(f)(2).