My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/6/2021 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2021
>
Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
12/6/2021 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2022 2:44:04 PM
Creation date
2/17/2022 2:54:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2021
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/6/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Proposal consists of a new patio cover. Property is zoned C -One Family Residence. <br />1. A 30 ft. variance for rear yard setback of a roofed patio; code requires 50 ft., applicant shows <br />approximately 20 ft., Section 1135.02(C)(4)(a). See also 1135.06(D) <br />The applicant is replacing a roof over an existing patio. The roofed patio encroaches into the <br />required rear yard setback by 30 feet. No previous variance was granted for the existing <br />structure. Mr. Oslin said the cover would extend out from the house so there would only be 20 <br />feet to the rear property. Ms. Kochan added that the existing structure is in disrepair and needs to <br />be replaced. Ms. Lieber added that the lot is just over the 135 feet of depth that is required for <br />single family lots. The dwelling is nonconforming in that it currently does not meet the rear yard <br />setback. The dwelling is about 25 feet from the property line, where 50 is required. Mr. Mackey <br />thought the property was not sufficient to meet current requirements. Mr. Papotto noted that the <br />home setbacks on Deerfield were varied, creating a hardship for owners to meet the rear yard <br />setback requirement. <br />Mr. Mackey moved, seconded by Ms. Patton, to approve the following variance for 21- <br />20928; Lisa Kochan; 24837 Deerfield Drive: <br />1. A 30 ft. variance for rear yard setback of a roofed patio; code requires 50 ft., applicant <br />shows approximately 20 ft., Section 1135.02(C)(4)(a). See also 1135.06(D) <br />Motion passed 4-0. <br />21-20948; Cory Kovach; 31067 Lorain Road <br />Representative: Cory Kovach, owner <br />Proposal consists of a shed in the side yard. Property is zoned B-2 Office/Service. <br />1. A variance for an accessory storage building in the side yard, code does not allow, Section <br />1135.02(C)(1). <br />Note: Existing shed is 8 ft. x 10 ft. and is set back approximately 3.2 ft. from the property line. <br />While the property is zoned B-2 Office Service District, the residential standards in Chapter <br />1135 are applied to existing dwellings used for residential purpose. The shed was installed prior <br />to obtaining a building permit and placed in the side yard. In 1135.02(C)(5), accessory storage <br />structures must be set back a minimum of five feet from the side property line. Section <br />1135.06(B) also requires a minimum dwelling setback of five feet in the side yard. The code <br />prohibits accessory structures in any part of the side yard, but additionally, the shed is in the <br />required side yard that is intended to be open space. <br />Mr. Kovach said the pre -built shed sits on the driveway. There was a shed in that location when <br />they purchased the home but it was gone when they moved in. He was unaware of needing a <br />permit since there was a shed there before. They have flooding issues in the back yard and the <br />usable area is fenced in. Mr. Mackey asked if there is anywhere in the backyard that the shed <br />could be installed. Mr. Kovach did not think there would enough space since he also has a pool <br />and deck. He was also concerned about installing the shed in the area of the back yard that <br />floods. Mr. Papotto asked if the property is used commercially because he saw equipment on the <br />property. Mr. Kovach previously owned a landscaping business but is in the process of <br />liquidating his business assets. The shed would be used for personal storage. Mr. Papotto thought <br />it may be challenging to access the back yard due to the location of the home on the property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.