8/1/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I. A variance Ibr an aecessorr structure (deck) in IronI card: code does not permit; applicant ~hors., deck in front card- Section I I».02(( If I). Representatives: Tom and Jody Rock le. owners. The front deck was installed prior to obtaining a building permit In I IJ�.02. aceessury uses. storage huildin,_s and accessorc structures shall onh he permitted in rear yards of residential lots in ane one or hvo famitc residence district. Ms. Secle< read the stall comments I}om the Building Department: The Building Dcparment was notified on April '_� by an anon moua complaint that the deck was constructed. A violation notice was issued ,April 20 for work without permit the honncovvner applied fila% 5 Ibr a permit. I he original deck drawings were not approved. The homeowner met with the Buildinu Commissioner on the project. the deck tutu redesigned by the homeowner. so that it would unh_ need to be reviewed for zoning compliance rather than huildiag code. (Any deck that meets all lour criteria belora is not subject to building code review, hilt a permit is required for tuning approval. I. I ndcr'_00 sq. If. 2. L.css than 30" high, Not attached to the house. q_ Does not serve the required egress door. usually the front dour. alter review, it vras determined that they would need to apple lou the variance for accessory structure in the front yard and the portion covering the front stoop must be reml neo remaining sections are to remain. Mr. Roekle explained that tlnp moeed to North Olmsted about a year ago and did not reah/c that they needed to pull a permit. Ms. Seeley noted that she had an inspector drive by the property today and the section above the door is still there She assumes that i( the variance is granted that part of the deck w ill he removed? :Mr. Roekle said yes. Ms. Patton verified that the part of the deck they are rcaievving is the portion that is right of the door under the front window. his. Secley said ces. Mrs. Roekle submitted pictures of the front deck to be part of the record h1r. Papouo verified that that the deck in front of the door is to be removed and we arc stricti, granting It variance for the deck that is to the right of the door. his. Seeley said res. Ms. Seclev noted that the Rockles met with the Building Iommissioncr regarding the project and they chose to go with the variance request instead Of submitling building dm %ings pursuant to building codes. Law Director Gareau stated for the record that the variance that is granted tonight docs not mean the Roekles can keep the front porch arca the wuv it is currentk. If the variance is approved tonight it is only for right of the front door and anything in front of the Iront door must be removed- iA discussion was held regarding if the applicants should table their request in order to meet amain with the Building Commissioner. Mr. Mackey moved. seconded by AIr. Rahn to proceed with a short period for additional questions. Motion Passed 4-0. V-Ir. ,Macke-\ asked the applicants it the% would like to proceed and seek two variances for the project. Mr. Rockle explained that from speaking with Mr. Grusenmevcr it would be impossihlc Io have the deck the way tile, want it. which is the war it is eurrenth. In order to mccl the