9/11/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

considered as a valid hardship. Mr. Fields clarified that his hardship was not financial, as he had the means to store the vehicle elsewhere. The challenge stemmed from his wife's recent knee replacement, making it difficult for her to travel. Despite the inconvenience, he expressed willingness to move the vehicle if required. acknowledging the potential loss of tax revenues for North Olmsted but indicating his readiness to comply with regulations. Mr. Mackey inquired about Mr. Fields' plans if the variance was granted and how long the vehicle would remain on his driveway. Mr. Fields explained that he w -as seeking approval for a year, considering potential challenges during winter. He clarified that he had approached several storage facilities, including Olmsted Falls, but preferred Stearns Road Storage due to its proximity, covered storage, and additional services. Responding to Me. Mackey's question about the daily use of the vehicle, Mr. Felds mentioned that the business would officially start operating in spring 2024. Currently, the fully built -out food truck was stored and not actively in use. Mr. Rahm moved to approve 23-24988; Fields/Anderson: 27260 Butternut Ridge Road: seconded by Mr. Kovach. Board members discussed the matter, considering Mr. O'Malley's suggestion about co - jurisdiction with the Landmarks Commission. Some members expressed hesitancy and were not in favor of the variance. They pointed out that there were other resolutions. The uniqueness of the case was acknowledged, and opinions varied. Motion Denied: 5-0 23-25082; Debra/James Ferguson; 29502 Wellington Drive Representative: Debra Ferguson: 29502 Wellington Drive Ms. Seeley introduced this proposal as a fence in the side/rear yard of a corner lot. The folloxying variance was requested: a 10 -foot variance for the setback of a fence in the side and rear yard of a corner lot; code requires 20 feet, applicant provides 10 feet. Ms. Ferguson briefly explained she was replacing her fence because the existing one is falling apart. She explained that there was an approve variance for the existing fence in 1994 and she was having the new fence installed in the exact same place. Mr. O'Malley reminded the board of the practical difficulty standards applicable to the request. emphasizing the burden on the applicant to meet those standards. While acknowledging the investment in the property, he highlighted that the current setup. whether under a prior variance or a prior coded, did not automatically justify a new variance. He explained that the nature of zoning law allows for compliance updates when a new installation occurs. Mr. O'Malley cautioned against accepting a preference for a different location as a practical difficulty and urged the board to adhere to the imposed practical difficulty standards outlined by the law-. Mr. Rahm moved to approve 23-25082. Debra/James Ferguson. 29502 Wellington Drive: seconded by Ms. Patton.