03/11/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2010 ROLL CALL Mrs. Diver called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Maureen Diver, Nancy Sergi, Jennifer Rudolph, Laura Bellido, Alfredo Lopez Staff: Law Director Michael Gareau Jr., Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to adopt the February 4, 2010 minutes as submitted which was approved 5-0. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS Michael Dranuski; 23622 Stoneybrook Drive: Request for variance (1123.12); proposal consists of a shed. The following variances are requested: 1. A 40 square foot variance for a storage shed larger than allowed; code permits 80 sq ft, applicant show 120 sq ft, section 1135.02(d)(1). Mr. Dranuslci was sworn in and said he would like to replace the existing Rubbermaid shed with a new permanent 10' x 12' shed. Their garage houses their vehicles and does not provide additional room to store yard equipment and tools. He does not want items stored outdoors as it promotes theft and clutters the yard. He submitted photos of the existing shed and a signed document from his neighbors aclcnowledging the shed and attesting they have no objections to the variance. Ms. Rudolph verified the dimensions of the yard. Mr. Mitchell said the lot size is allowed an 80 sq ft shed and 120 sq ft is being requested which he does not object to however if the variance is granted he would like to make sure the Rubbermaid shed is removed. Mr. Gareau agreed with the building official that if a variance was granted for the new shed the existing shed should be removed. Mr. Dranuski said that the shed would be removed. Mrs. Sergi said that additional storage is a need but the request is almost double what is allowed. The new shed meets all other codes, replaces the existing shed and the character of the neighborhood and governmental services will not be adversely affected. She is conflicted as to whether or not the variance should be granted as an 80 sq ft shed can be built. Mrs. Bellido said the baclcyard is small and she is concerned the shed could encompass too much of the small yard. Mr. Lopez said the yard is not large and neighboring sheds are smaller as well. The large size shed will affect the character of the neighborhood as the lots are small. The city is not responsible for the number of items owners need to store and the lot is allowed an 80 square foot shed. Ms. Rudolph agreed that the yards are small and despite the neighbors agreeing to the shed it will be a pennanent fixture. Mrs. Diver said that as the existing shed would be removed, the need for additional storage is warranted. Mr. Lopez asked if the shed was premade, constructed on site and what type of materials would be used. Mr. Mitchell said he did not receive any plans