03/03/2025 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 .01 BUILDING & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 3, 2025 ROLL CALL Mr. Kovach called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present: Bob Papotto, Ralph Mackey, Roxana Galateanu, Mike Kovach, Neil Ammons Staff. Building Coordinator Katie Seeley, Law Director Michael Gareau, Administrative Assistant Lyn Wilson MEETING MINUTES The meeting minutes of February 3, 2025 were approved; all in favor, none opposed. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS 225-2025; Joseph Fasino; 5870 Stearns Rd. Representative: Joseph Fasino A variance was requested for a two -foot height increase for a fence in their side or rear yard. The existing fence was 6 feet, and the applicant proposed raising it to 8 feet. The request followed issues with a neighbor, including uncomfortable interactions, and concerns about cameras pointed at the applicant's property, which created privacy issues, especially for their daughter. Despite police involvement, the neighbor's actions persisted, leading the applicant to seek the fence height increase. The proposal was to raise the fence and shift it closer to the property line to block the neighbor's view. The applicant anticipated significant costs but emphasized the need for privacy and peace of mind for their family. The board asked clarifying questions, but no further objections were raised. Mr. Mackey moved to approve 225-2025; Joseph Fasino; 5870 Stearns Rd.; seconded by Mr. Papotto. The board members discussed the request, acknowledging that, aside from the personal reasons involving the neighbor's behavior, the applicant's situation justified the need for the variance. One member felt that without the details and evidence about the neighbor's actions, it would be difficult to support the request. However, given the circumstances and the applicant's need for privacy, the member supported the variance. Another board member agreed, calling the situation with the neighbor unfortunate and emphasizing that the applicant had limited options. The variance was seen as the necessary solution, and it was noted that the fence would not negatively impact others in the area, supporting the decision to approve it.