4/5/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Lieber thought it was an unfortunate circumstance that the error was not caught prior to the permit issuance but suggested there may be a way for the fence to be installed while better meeting the code requirements. Ms. Rambo -Ackerman summarized a voicemail received from Patricia Dean at 27879 Blossom Boulevard on April 5, 2021. Ms. Dean did not mind the fence but thought it goes up too far and blocked the view of the street. Emails from the Witwer Family at 27832 Blossom Boulevard and Dan Knoll and Sara Malone at 27831 Blossom Boulevard were also read into the record. Mr. Roberts believed the neighbor is still able to see down the street. Mr. Papotto asked what the definition of the front yard is. The front yard is any portion of the property between the street and the front face of the house. In this situation, a six-foot fence could have been built up to the front of the attached garage on the east side of the property, but would need to end at the front of the house on the west side of property. Mr. Gareau reminded the Board that the proposal should be reviewed as if the fence had not been constructed yet. Mr. Mackey believed an honest mistake was made when submitting the paperwork and supported the applicant in his effort to try to solve the issues with his neighbor. He pointed out the applicant has also built the fence one foot inside the property line to avoid further controversy. Mr. Patton agreed but thought another type of fence could solve the issue without requiring a variance. Mr. Papotto agreed with both comments and thought landscaping could be added to increase privacy. He thought the owner's intent was to have the fence go to the front of the structure even though it is technically in the front yard and he has shown a hardship. Mr. Rahm did not think the fence was an eyesore or stuck out more than any of the others on the street. Mr. Allain thought the lots are unique since the driveways are next to each other and that justified the need for the variance. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variances for 21- 18610; William Roberts; 27855 Blossom Boulevard: 1. A 3 ft. 6 in. variance for height of a fence in the front yard; code allows a fence in the front yard not to exceed 30 in., applicant shows 6 ft., Section 1135(D)(2). 2. A 50% variance for an opaque fence in the front yard; code allows a fence in the front yard not to exceed 50% opacity, applicant shows 100%, Section 1135.02(D)(2). Motion passed 4-1, Ms. Patton voted no. 21-18717; Mike Bamhouty; 4712 Dover Center Road Representative: Doha Sharawi, 32628 Albion Drive, Avon Lake, OH Proposal consists of a covered patio. Property is zoned A -One Family Residence. 1. A 14 ft. 10'/z in. variance for rear yard setback of patio contiguous to a dwelling; code requires 50 ft., applicant show approximately 35 ft. 1'/2 in., Section 1135.02(C)(4). See also Section 1135.06(D). The proposal consists of a covered patio contiguous to a dwelling. The applicant is showing a new home addition where the patio will attach. The home addition is zoning compliant; however, the patio encroaches into the required rear yard by 14 feet, 10'/2 inches. No previous variances were found for the existing patio which also encroaches into the required rear yard. Ms. Sharawi said the existing patio is a paved area on the ground. They are working on drawings to submit for building permits. There are no neighbors behind them and there are trees in the yard, so she did not think the addition would bother anyone. Ms. Lieber noted the lot was substantially smaller and more square shaped than most of the other lots on Dover Center Road. The house sits on the