05/16/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? ., . so well and hopes that they continue to prosper. However, the City can not justify granting a variance every year for the same thing as that does not address the issue. Mr. Puzzitiello questioned what would happen if the board denied the variance request. Nlr. O'Malley reviewed that the building department would site the applicants and evoke a fine. Furthermore, the City can bring civil action against the applicants in court. The board members are concerned that Wal-Mart did not bother having a representative present. The board felt it was an insult for Wal-Mart to not have representation present. 1VLr. Klesta is concerned Wal-Mart will just pay the fine and keep the trailers on the site, because they only need them for the summer months. Mr. O'Malley questioned if the applicant had room in the rear of the building to store trailers. Mr. Rymarczyk indicted that there is not enough room behind the building for the trailers to be stored. Mr. Puzzitiello believed that the board had not choice but to deny the variance request. R. Puzzitiello motioned to deny Wal-Mart Store # 2316 of 24801 Brookpark Road their request for a variance to be allowed to have 5 merchandise trailers in the Southeast corner of the lot until 6-30-02. Which is in violation of section 1363.07 (b-5). Storage trailers are currently in the southeast corner of lot and are visible from' Country Club Blvd. Right-of-way. The motion was seconded by P. Engoglia and unanimously approved. Variance Denied. 2. John & Martha Wright; 4327 Coe Ave.; Proposal consists of a fence. Applicant requests a variance to be allowed to erect a fence along a common property line on which there is an existing fence. Which is in violation of section, (1369.03 (a-3) ). Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. & Mrs. Wright came forward to review their request. Mr. Wright reviewed that the building department issued him a building permit to erect a redwood basket weave fence, which is the same as what the rest of the fences are in the neighborhood. The Elyria Fencing Company signed a contract to erect the fence, the building permit was issued on April 24, 2002 to build the fence. The fencing company ordered all the material to erect the fence since the building permit was issued. A week later he came home from work and found that their rear fence had been cut in half and the rear neighbor had erected white poles for the white vinyl fence that is in place now. Mr. Engoglia questioned if the applicant was suggesting that the owner of the white fence erected their fence without a permit after the applicant received his permit for a fence. Mr. Wright answered "yes", his wife talked to the building department and was told the rear neighbors did not have a permit for their fence and was instructed to have our land surveyed. Mr. Wright measured offthe fence again and it measures 3-inches onto his property. The building inspector came out later and stated that he measured the lots. The Building inspector told the Wright the City would be giving the rear neighbor a permit to finish their fence and they were revoking the permit the Wright were given. Mr. Puzzitiello questioned if the applicant knew if there are lot pins in the back of his lot. He suggested that when the homes were built pins were placed at the back of all the lots. Mr. Wright indicated he was not sure. Mr. Puzzitiello indicated that unless a surveyor check the lots the board can not tell who owns the fence. Mr. Wright informed the board a surveyor would be conducting the survey on May 18, 2002. Mr. Klesta commented that there are always two sides to a story and the board has only heard the applicants. He feels that since the fences start and stop at the rear surrounding neighbors property lines then they are the owners not the applicant. The building department indicated that the rear neighbor was the owner of the original fence that they in fact removed. Mr. Engoglia questioned if the rear neighbor erected the white fence without a building permit and removed the section of fence the applicant suggested was removed. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the rear neighbor erected the 2