05/15/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

oy , problem as long as there is room in between fences to maintain it. Mr. Klesta asked if there will be some kind of access in the back. Ms. Lusnia said there will not be a gate on the back section, and added it is 6 feet high in the back. Mr. Sobieski pointed out there is space between their house and the neighbor. Their side fence is not going to be on the property line. He added that he maintains it right now. Mr. Althen asked if there is anything on the left side of the property. Ms. Lusnia said there is an existing fence on the left and nothing on the right side. Mr. Althen said he would like to see an access to get back there for maintenance. Ms. Lusnia pointed out it will still be their property on the right side of the fence. Ms. Lusnia asked where the board would propose they put a gate. Mr. Klesta said he believes it should be off the back side where the swale is. Ms. Lusnia said they would have to talk with the contractor. Mr. Klesta said he believes it would not be a problem it would just be more of an expense. Mr. Klesta explained the board's concerns are the aesthetics of North Olmsted and they are looking for 100% maintenance of every fence in the city. Mr. Sobieski said that the ordinance says if there is a fence on a property line, you cannot put a fence along side it. He said the neighbor's fence is not on the property line, and theirs is not either. He said that technically the ordinance does not really apply if you want to argue that way. They are just trying to resolve this as quickly as they can because neither fence will be on a property line. Mr. Althen said he would like to see an access to the back area. Ms. Lusnia asked if the access could be on the side fence as opposed to the back. She indicated it doesn't make sense to have it on the six-foot section if they could have it on the four-foot section. Mr. Althen said that should not be a problem, as long as they have an access. Mr. Klesta explained why the board has to take a stand on the issue of fences. They are trying to clean up the fencing issues and maintenance problems. N. Althen made a motion to approve the variance for Kristen Lusnia and Jeffery Sobieski, 23888 Delmere Drive, with the inclusion of an access to the east portion of the fence. The motion was seconded by R. Klesta and unanimously approved. Variance granted as amended. Dave Bir; 27868 Southern Ave. Proposal consists of a fence. A variance to allow violation 1369.03 (a) (3) General requirement for fences and screen walls. Where a neighbor has already installed fence along property line an additional fence will not be permitted. Vice Chairman Klesta called all interested parties forward. Mr. Bir came forward to address the board. He explained he received a variance for the front of his fence from the Board of Zoning Appeals. He showed the board members some pictures and pointed out the area where the variance was needed. He indicated his neighbor put up a fence a few years ago. It is a 4-foot high chain link fence that went up behind his fence. He said there is 18 inches between the fences and they keep mulch in between them. He was able to get back there last year and paint but the boards are starting to split and warp, and this is why he wants to put up a whole new fence. Mr. Bir said he has a letter from his neighbor that states he has no problem with the proposed fence. The neighbor would actually like to see the fence go up so they both have privacy. Mr. Bir indicated he wants the fence for his dog and his child. Mr. Althen asked if he is looking to replace the entire existing fence. Mr. Bir said he is because it is 25 years old and it is starting to come apart. He pointed out there is a big tree in the back and the fence cannot be brought in any farther because of it. He said he and his neighbor have been able to maintain the area in between the fences. They reviewed the plans further and discussed the variance that was already granted and the fence height. Mr. O'Malley said the Board of Zoning Appeals addressed the height along the side line on a corner lot, and whether or not it is less than 50% open. Mr. Rymarczyk pointed out the variances have been worked out and granted. The only thing left is the side fence adjacent to another fence. Mr. Klesta said normally when you touch an existing product, whether it is grandfathered or not, it always has to be brought up to code. He said 18 inches is really a rough call. Mr. Bir said the base of the tree is about 5 feet in the middle and he cannot come in any further with the fence. Mr. Conway asked for Mr. O'Malley's input. Mr. O'Malley said he would agree with Mr. Klesta's reference to the grandfathering issue. The applicant is grandfathered as it is, as existing, but once you make a move to re-do it, the code is kicked in and therefore a need for a variance. He said they are 4