5/4/2020 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pointed out that the plans show easements on three sides of the property. The fence would be located within the easements on two sides. Mr. Rahm did not have any issues with the proposal. Ms. Patton was concerned about the fence jutting out from the neighbor's fence and how it would affect the look of the neighborhood, Mr. Allain and Mr. Papotto agreed. Mr. Papotto thought it would be more noticeable since the property is close to the access to the neighborhood. He thought it would look a lot nicer if the fence lined up with the neighbor's fence and it would be outside of the utility easement, Mr. Allain agreed. Mr. Allain, Mr. Papotto and Mr. Rahm would be in favor of the proposal if it was in line with the neighbor's fence. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Rahm, to approve the following variance for 20- 16092; Jason Wood; 5590 Pheasants Walk Drive: 1. A 13 ft. variance (approximate) for setback of a fence constructed on a corner lot in the side and rear yards abutting a side street (Wood Path Drive); code requires 20 ft.; applicant provides approximately 7 ft.; Section 1135.02(D)(3). Motion denied 0-4. 20-16204; Matt & Barb Simoncic; 5770 Canterbury Road Representatives: John Faile, architect, 31413 Drake Drive, Bay Village, OH Proposal consists of a home addition. Property is zoned A -One Family Residence. The following variances are requested: 1. A 39.25 ft. variance for rear yard setback; code requires 50 ft.; applicant shows 10.75 ft.; Section 1135.06(D). 2. A variance for enlarging a non -conforming dwelling in a manner that does not conform to required setbacks; code permits enlargement of a non -conforming dwelling so long as yard regulations and setback requirements are met; applicant shows the addition encroaching into the rear yard; Section 1165.02(B)(2). Note: The existing dwelling straddles two parcels; lot consolidation is recommended. Ms. Lieber stated that the applicant proposes to construct a home addition on the south side of the structure. The existing dwelling rear setback is non -conforming. The addition will have the same non -conforming setback. Two variances are required, one for the setback of the new addition and the second for the fact that a non -conforming dwelling is being expanded without the addition confirming to code. The lot consolidation application was submitted and approved by the Planning & Design Commission on April 29. The mylar is in the process of being signed and will soon be recorded with the county. Mr. Gareau said the code requires non -conforming structures be brought into conformity but the request would not do that, therefore requiring both variances. Mr. Faile said the owners bought the home about 8-10 years ago after the golf course was built. He thought the developer who built the condos to the west purchased the land to build the road forcing the homes along Canterbury into having non -conforming rear yard setbacks. He did not believe the home could be brought into conformance because of the location of the earthen mound and the access road behind the home. The owners want to build an addition, consisting of a bedroom, living space and bathroom on the south side of the home thereby adding more value to the home. Ms. Lieber pointed out that the side setbacks would still be met and a parking lot is located closest to the addition, and did not object to the proposal. Mr. Rahm did not see any