7/10/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

potential zoning violation. Mr. Mallias stated that he did not think that this was something that the City was required to permit. Ms. Hemann stated for Mr. Mallias that he believed he was dine the right thing by seeking approval from the Church and the neighbors and felt their approval was sufficient. Mr. Papotto asked Ms. Seeley if there were any variances on the existing chain link fence. which she replied there wasn't. Mr. Rahm made a motion; seconded by Mr. Kovach: to approve 23-24480; George & SOUIa Mallias; 27293 Benwood Circle. Board members entered into their discussion. Ms. Patton began with stating she understood the need but wanted to know if there was some sort of remedy that the resident may take to only have one variance request instead of two. She stated she was viewing the material and the height differently and suggested the possibility of a compromise. Mr. Mackey commented about the reason for the case. and stated that there was a complaint made with the end result of the violation that was issued. He did say that the applicant does keep his property clean and neat and maintains it well. and offered that the type of material that w -as used is a common product in home improvement stores in the city. He stated that he did not think it looked obnoxious, but the material is not in the code. Mr. Rahm agreed with both Mr. Mackey and Ms. Patton but stated that the situation wvas unique. and the property was very well kept. Mr. Rahm stated his main concern was the type of material used in the top section of the fence. Mr. Kovach also stated he agreed with the concerns of the material used. but that he did not have any issue "with the reason. Mr. Papotto explained his view, that it looked tasteful. nothing looked bad. the yard was neat. the area and installation were both neat. He stated he felt the applicant acted in goodwill and he was in favor of the variance requests. Mr. Mackey added that he did agree with Mr. Papotto's comments and felt the applicant has found a viable solution to the issues he was dealing with. Motion passed: -0 23-24672; Odeh Odeh; 3550 Clague Road Representative(s): Odeh Odeh. 350 Clague Road. Ms. Seeley introduced the case as a proposal of a deck in the front yard. There was one variance request which was a variance for an accessory structure (deck) in the front yard: code requires accessory structures to be located in rear yard only, applicant shows an accessory structure (deck) in the front vard. She added that the deck was constructed in the front yard without a permit. The applicant was advised by Tim Smith to stop working and apply for a permit from the building department. She stated that they have been working on the project with the applicant since then. Mr. Odeh explained that he and his family were living in the home s a lease to own and were not permitted to completed any projects on the home. He stated that they took ownership of the home in March 2023. He explained he did not know anything about permits or codes or anything of the sort. He told the board that he had a water proofer come to the house and they applied for the permit so he was unaware that they were required. He expressed the need for the deck on the front of the house was because his back yard is really swampy and too wet for the majority of the year and his kids cannot play back there. He added that Clague Road is very busy and a little scary, so he felt that he and his wife could sit on the deck to watch the kids while they played in