My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/05/2001 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2001
>
2001 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
04/05/2001 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:37 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 5:07:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2001
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/5/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
, <br />W. Kremzar motioned to grant Arthur Friedel of 25708 Timber Cove his variance as written. T. <br />Koberna seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Grantec9 4/5/01 <br />3. Darin McElenev; 26971 Butternut Ridge Rd. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of constructing a fence on a corner lot. <br />The following variances are required: <br />1) A 50 ft. variance to construct a fence in the required 50 ft. front building setback of the <br />abutting lot on the side street. Violation of Section 1135:02 (F-2). <br />2) A variance to construct a 6 ft. high solid fence on a street line in a required setback. <br />Ordinance allows 30" high and 50% open. Variance requested: 42" for height, and 50% for <br />open area. Violation of Section 1135.02 (F-1). <br />3) A variance ror 18" of height on the rear line cfiain link fence in the abutting required setback. <br />Ordinance allows 30" high, 50% open, requests 48" high and over 50% open. Violation of <br />Section 1135.02 (F-1). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 (F-1) &(F-2). <br />Chairinan Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. The oath was <br />administered to Darin McEleney, the property owner, who caine forward to review the proposal. <br />Mr. Maloney asked him to explain to the board what exactly he wants to do with this fence. Mr. <br />McEleney commented that basically the objective was to build a privacy fence along Fitch Rd. to <br />have a little privacy in the house and yard. They are on a corner lot and the only opportunity they <br />have to close in their yard is the back yard. Along the south and the west perimeter, as per <br />request by neighbors of abutting properties, they proposed chain link because they didn't want to <br />close off all the yards visually. Privacy fence along the street would be the dog yard fenced board, <br />and there is about a quarter inch between each board. The reason they would Iike the fencing 6 <br />feet high is because the road is a little higher than their yard. When people are stopped at the <br />lights they can see into the house and a 6 ft. high fence would eliminate people with cars or lower <br />vehicles to see into the house. Plus they have kids cutting through the yards which the fence <br />would prohibit any kids getting hurt in his yard. NIr. Maloney questioned how far the fence <br />would be off the sidewalk edge because of the trees being a problem. Mr. McEleney replied that <br />the trees are 3 feet from the east edge of the sidewalk. Obviously they'd want to go between 6 <br />and 12 inches from the sidewalk because they would like to keep the yard as big as possible. Mr. <br />Konold questioned if he had children. Mr. McEleney replied yes, a 10-year-old son and 2 dogs. <br />1V1r. Maloney questioned how much clearance space there was from the edge of the driveway to <br />where the first fence post would be. He went down there when school was out and there were a <br />lot of children in the area. He is concerned for their safety as to cars backing out of the drive. <br />Mr. McEleney replied there was plenty distance. There is roughly 29 ft. from where the driveway <br />meets the sidewalk to the corner fence post. Mr. ICoberna commented that he looked at it too, <br />and it appeared that he had enough to visually see anybody comina around the corner. He then <br />commented that he would like to see the fence back off the sidewalk as much as possible. Mr. _ <br />Kremzar questioned if he wanted back more than he is proposing. Mr. Koberna replied no, if he <br />can keep it off 18 inches it would give bike handle bars enough room to clear. Not right on the <br />edge of the sidewalk, at least a foot. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if he went to Landmarks <br />Commission on this because he had no record of it. Mr. McEleney replied correct, it was <br />unanimous that nobody had a problem. Landmarks changed what he had and they wanted to keep <br />the fence consistent with the section going along the street. So it wouYd actually be privacy fence <br />along the street to the corner of the house and from the other corner of the house to the east side <br />of their property line. Then they will chain link the rest of the sections in the rear yard. <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.