My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/7/2020 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2020
>
Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
12/7/2020 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2021 2:13:09 PM
Creation date
3/9/2021 2:06:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2020
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/7/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Ms. Rambo -Ackerman reported a voicemail was received from Ms. Judith Joseph at 4149 <br />Linden Circle saying she had no objections to the fence. <br />Ms. Patton was concerned that the neighbor behind the fence could have reduced visibility when <br />pulling out of their driveway. She pointed out that a variance would be required due to the lot <br />shape but appreciated that the fence was installed in line with the side of the house. Mr. Allain <br />would have liked it if the fence was angled by the sidewalk. He was concerned that City Council <br />addressed corner lot fences and the proximity to the sidewalk was too close. Mr. Papotto thought <br />the lot shape was a hardship but thought the fence could have been angled by the sidewalk since <br />it is so close. Mr. Rahm thought it was difficult to assess without a site plan and agreed that the <br />distance was too close. <br />Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Ms. Patton, to approve the following variances for 20- <br />18088: Dave Butterworth; 23542 Cedarwood Lane: <br />1. A 19 ft. variance for side yard setback of a solid 6 ft. high fence on a corner lot; code <br />requires 20 ft., applicant provides 1 ft., Section 1135.02(D). <br />Motion denied 0-4. <br />20-18154; Bill Kovacs; 5967 Barton Road <br />Representatives: Bill & Carol Kovacs, owners <br />Proposal consists of a new shed. Property is zoned B -One Family Residence. <br />1. A 322 sq. ft. variance for area of a storage building; code permits 350 sq. ft., applicant shows <br />672 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(C)(2). <br />2. A 1 ft. variance for height of a storage building; code permits 14 ft., applicant shows 15 ft., <br />Section 113 5.02(C)(2). <br />The applicant proposes a new shed to replace an existing storage structure on their property in <br />the rear yard. The new shed exceeds height and area requirements based on lot size, which is <br />2.24 acres. A 350 square foot structure is permitted and 672 square feet is proposed including the <br />patio. The average peak height of the structure is 15 feet where 14 feet is permitted. <br />Mr. Kovacs would like to replace an existing horse stable that is used as a shed. It does not have <br />a concrete floor and is not in great condition. The new 20 by 24 -foot building will have a <br />concrete floor and will be located in the same spot as the existing stable. One side will have an <br />eight -foot wide porch. The building will be near their garden and will be used to store their lawn <br />and gardening equipment. When Mr. Kovacs laid out all of his equipment, he determined the <br />larger building size was needed. The loft area would be used as a workshop. The lot is <br />approximately 2.5 acres and backs up to Bradley Woods. The new structure is similar to other <br />buildings in the neighborhood and would improve the property value. <br />Ms. Lieber pointed out that the concrete patio area is included in the square footage of the <br />structure. The structure is similar to others in the neighborhood and asked if there were other <br />structures in the rear yard. Mr. Kovacs said there is only one outbuilding on the lot which will be <br />replaced. Mr. O'Malley pointed out that the lot is more than twice the amount of the largest lot <br />size for sheds permitted so he believed the larger building size was supported. Mr. Allain asked <br />if it would be used for commercial purposes, Mr. Kovacs said it would not be. Mr. Allain did not <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.