2/5/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUILDING & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2024 ROLL CALL Mr. Papotto called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Bob Papotto, Ralph Mackey, Dan Rahm, Michael Kovach. Suzie Patton Staff. Director Max Upton, Building Coordinator Katie Seeley, Law- Director Michael Gareau. Administrative Assistant Lyn Wilson MEETING MINUTES The meeting minutes of July 10`', 2023 were submitted for approval: all in favor: none opposed. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS 26052; Fade Muntaser; 2497.1 Mitchell Drive Representatives: Fadv Mlmtaser and Inez Abdel Salam: 24974 Mitchell Drive. Ms. Seelev introduced the case as a proposal consisting of a fence in the side/rear yard of a corner lot. Property was zoned C -One Family Residence. The followin'variance was requested: A 16 -foot variance for the setback of a fence in the side and rear yard of a corner lot: code requires 20 foot: applicant provides four feet. She explained that the fence was a six-foot high wood solid overlap fence. The only comment she had was that the\* went to the October 2" �. 2023 meeting. At that meeting Mr. Muntaser had been granted a variance of 8 feet for a fence in the side and rear yard of a corner lot; during the final inspection it was discovered that the fence had been installed four feet from the side near the rear of the home and five feet near the back of the lot. Ms. Abdel Salam explained they had their fence installed in October and believed it met the agreed-upon specifications. The inspector later informed them that the fence was supposed to be four feet away from the house. not the sidewalk. The contractor had assured them everything was in order, having communicated with the inspector. Despite the confusion she explained they lacked the financial means to remove and rebuild the fence. She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the situation and sought approval to keep the fence in its current position. Ms. Seeley reported that when the fence was applied for. the provided site plan indicated a four - foot extension from the house. leading to the granting of a variance. However. upon the inspector's review. it was discovered that the fence had been built eight feet from the house instead of the approved four feet. The house, already non -conforming on a corner lot. was just 16 feet from the property line. The fence, measuring 12 feet. caused further non -conformity. There might have been confusion with the contractor, who was unaware of the deviation from the approved plan. The current placement, eight feet from the property line, did not align with the approved variance granted in October. requiring them to seek an additional four -foot variance.