08/01/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W. Kremzar made a motion to grant So L. Litten of 24789 Deerfield Dr. her request for variance (1123:12), which consists of an .addition to home and that the following variances be granted as amended: A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02) Existing hoine is only 27 feet from rear property line. 1. . A 38 foot variance for rear yard setback (code requires 50 ft., applicant shows 12 ft.). Note: Work has been started on addition. Footer has been poured as of 7/17/02. 2. A 6 foot privacy fence replace the existing fence the entire length of the back yard. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1165.02), and (1135.08 (a)). The motion was seconded by J. Konold. Roll call on the motion: J. Konold, W. Kremzar; Yes, N. Sergi, and J. Maloney; No. Variances Denied. Mr. Newman asked if there is an appeal process. Mr. Maloney explained if there is a 25% change in the plans, the applicant can come back on the docket, otherwise they would have to wait a year. Mr. Newman referred to the code and mentioned the requirements to prove hardship. He said Ms. Litten is concerned about the..safety of her children and she is adding to her property value. Her house is set so far back and she has agreed with the neighbors to tear down the existing fence and erect a 6 ft. fence. Mr. Konold asked Mr. O'Malley whether the board can tie up the applicant for a year. Mr. O'Malley cautioned the board about Mr. Newman's comments. He said Mr. Newman should 'not attempt to practice law before the board. Mr. O'Malley said he understood the question to be whether or not the board's decision is final, and whether or not there is a remedy or an appeal. The board's decision as the matter was presented is final. An appeal can be taken to the court of common pleas. He added the Chairman was correct in describing the practice of entertaining a new and different variance, if it is 25% changed. He is not certain it is accurate that should a year pass, an applicant can come back and make the same application. Mr. O'Malley said he believes the board's determination on this application would be final. Mr. Newman apologized to the board and Mr. O'Malley. He explained he is an attorney, but he did not come in that capacity. He came to support Ms. Litten. Mr. Maloney said as he sees it, the room addition could have been placed on the side of the. house. To cut back to just 12 ft. in the rear yard puts her right on top of the neighbors. The house may have been built before the code required a 50 ft. rear setback but to move it further is going against what the city is looking for in terms of aesthetic values. Mr. Newman brought up the 6 ft. fence. Mr. Conway said the reason for yard setbacks and back yards is open space, and green space. A 6 ft. fence does not address that issue. Mrs. Sergi added that as far as the safety of the children, the yard is already fenced in. Mr. O'Malley asked that the board considers the further comments made after the board's decision and categorize it as a request by the applicant for the board to reconsider the decision. If that motion is not made, then the board can get on with its business. The board is not required to move to reconsider, but it appears that is what the applicant is driving at. It is up to the board to let it stand as decided or reconsider and re- open the matter for further debate. J. Maloney made a motion to reconsider the request of So L. Litten of 24789 Deerfield Dr. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar. Roll call on the motion: W. Kremzar, N. Sergi, and J. Maloney; No, J. Konold; Yes. Motion Denied. 12. Rubv Tuesdav; 26774 Lorain Rd. (WRD-1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of sign package. The following variances are requested: l. A variance for 1 additional wall sign on a building (code permits 1, applicant shows 2), section (1163.27 (a)). 2. A 71.5 square foot variance for wall signs, which exceeds 51.7 sq. ft(code permits 51.7 square ft., applicant shows 123.2 square ft.), section (1163.24 (b)). 9