My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/02/2023 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2023
>
Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
10/02/2023 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2024 10:23:58 AM
Creation date
4/11/2024 10:19:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2023
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
10/2/2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
BUILDING & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 2, 2023 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Mr. Papotto called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. <br />Present: Bob Papotto, Ralph Mackey, Michael Kovach. Suzie Patton <br />Absent: Mr. Rahm <br />Staff: Director Max Upton, Building Coordinator Katie Seeley, Law Director Michael Gareau. <br />Administrative Assistant Lyn Wilson <br />RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />23-25192; Fady Muntaser; 24974 Mitchell Drive <br />Representatives: Fady Muntaser and Inez Abdelsalem <br />Ms. Seelev introduced this to be a fence located in the rear yard of a corner lot. The variance <br />requested was for an eight -foot setback reduction for the fence. which was proposed to be six <br />feet hith and made of wood with solid overlap. The code mandated a 20 -foot setback. but the <br />applicant offered a setback of 12 feet. <br />Mr. Muntaser explained the variance request as necessary because the house measured only 16 <br />feet from the street. while the code mandated a 20 -foot setback. The additional four feet would <br />provide space for a secure backyard for their son, especially given the streets high traffic from <br />drivers cutting through. They also cited examples of nearby neighbors who had similar fences <br />closer to the sidewalk, with some even closer than the proposed variance. <br />Ms. Seeley explained the property line was typically measured up to the sidewalk. not directly to <br />the street. The proposed location for the fence was and the variance request was how- it was <br />written up, and there were no concerns regarding this placement. <br />Mr. Kovach moved to approve 23-25192. Fady Muntaser: 24974 Mitchell drive: seconded by <br />Ms. Patton. <br />Board members briefly shared their opinions in that is was not an unreasonable request and they <br />were in favor. <br />Motion passed: 4-0 <br />23-25326; Mark Casedonte; 23456 Mastick Road <br />Representative: Mark Casedonte: 23456 Mastick Road <br />Ms. Seeley explained the variance requests were for a driveway extension and its width. The first <br />variance sought a three-foot deviation from the maximum allowed width of 12 feet for a <br />driveway adjacent to an attached garage, with the applicant proposing dth of 15 feet. The <br />a wi <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.