My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/01/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
05/01/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:14 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 6:27:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/1/2003
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
4). Dave Dausis, 5477 Dorothv Drive WRD 3 <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of an addition. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. An 18 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 50', applicant shows 32) <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.06 (a)). <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward. Mr. Dapsis and Mr. Ken Perrin, a contractor, <br />came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Perrin indicated the applicant wants to expand <br />his family room and make it 20x24, which would make them short on the setback. Mr. Kremzar pointed <br />out the plans indicate the room is supposed to be 20x20. Mr. Perrin said it is supposed to be 20x24. It <br />would not affect the depth. Mr. Rymarczyk said their write up also indicated the room would be 20x20. <br />Mr. Kremzar asked what they will be going with. Mr. Perrin said they want it 24 feet wide. Mr. Kremzar <br />said that all the figures should have been completed before it came to the board. The board has to go with <br />what they are given and now the applicant is coming up with changes. Mr. Perrin said they could leave it <br />20x20. Mr. Rymarczyk said they try to expedite the cases that come before the board by having a <br />complete set of building drawings. It is for the benefit of the homeowner so they do not have to invest a <br />large amount of money if they are denied a variance. Mr. Kremzar asked if the building department will <br />need different drawings. Mr. Rymarczyk said they will need building drawings. <br />W. Kremzar made a motion'to grant Dave Dapsis, 5477 Dorothy Drive, his request for variance, which <br />consists of an addition, and that the following variance be granted: <br />1. An 18 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 50', applicant shows 32'). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.06 (a)). The motion was seconded by J. Konold and <br />unanimously approved. Variance Granted. <br />Chairman Maloney informed the applicant that he can check with the building department on May 9th and <br />they will have to bring in the revised drawings. 5). Darlene Lutz, 25067 Chase Drive WRD 2 <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of installing a swimming pool in backyard. The <br />following variance is requested: <br />1. A 90 square foot variance for swimming pool, (code allows 86 sq. ft., applicant shows 176 sq. ft.). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (d)(2)). <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward. Darlene and Brian Lutz came forward to be <br />sworn in and review their proposal. Mr. Lutz said that the whole issue is the way the measurements were <br />taken. They are not credited for a roughly 12x62 portion of their backyard because of the end of the <br />sunroom. The area on the right and left side would leave them with an additional 448 square feet after the <br />pool is installed. Mr. Kremzar asked who did the drawings. Mr. Lutz indicated he did the drawings and <br />they are correct. They reviewed the drawings which include the existing sunroom, which is 12x14x10. <br />He pointed out the area that is not credited to the size of his yard. He said if he got that square footage <br />back, less the sunroom, he would have an additiona1448 square feet even after the pool is installed, which <br />is inside the 20% rule. Mr. Konold asked who it is that did not credit the applicant some of the land. Mr. <br />Lutz indicated one of the city inspectors came out. Mr. Rymarczyk said the building line is from the rear <br />of the building, which is the wall of the sunroom. There is no credit to be given. W. O'Malley said that <br />he does not think the applicant is disagreeing with the building department interpretation of the code. He <br />believes the applicant was trying to express as a practical matter that in looking at this proposal as a <br />whole, his backyard can and should be used for this purpose. He was trying to point out that even though <br />the code does not recognize that grassy area, in reality it is there. He is trying to make an argument for a <br />practical difficulty to grant the variance. Mr. Kremzar asked about access to the pool. Mr. Lutz said they <br />will have a ladder. Mr. Kremzar asked if they have plans for a deck. Mr. Lutz said if they eventually put <br />in a deck, it would be very small. He realizes they would need an additional variance. He added that they <br />were told that anything below grade would not be affected.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.