My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/06/2025 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2025
>
Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
10/06/2025 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2026 1:32:12 PM
Creation date
3/5/2026 1:32:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2025
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
10/6/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 6,2025 <br /> ROLL CALL <br /> Mr. Papotto called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. <br /> Present: Bob Papotto,Roxana Galateanu,Neil Ammons <br /> Staff: Building Coordinator Katie Seeley, Law Director Michael Gareau,Administrative <br /> Assistant Lyn Wilson <br /> RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br /> 268-2025; Lori Moran; 5079 Porter Rd. <br /> The board heard an appeal regarding a gravel driveway extension at 5079 Porter Road. The <br /> property owner contested the building commissioner's order to remove the added gravel and <br /> restore the area to grass, arguing that part of the gravel had existed previously. A neighbor <br /> testified that gravel had been present for many years. The Building Department stated that while <br /> existing gravel driveways are permitted if maintained, extensions are not allowed and must be <br /> removed. Aerial photos from 1993,2002, and 2024 were reviewed, showing that the area in <br /> question appeared to have been expanded. The department maintained that only the original <br /> driveway is allowed to remain. <br /> The Building Department reiterated that gravel added after 1993 was not permitted and must be <br /> removed before adding dirt and seed, as simply covering it would not allow grass to grow <br /> properly. The property owner stated she could not afford full removal due to financial hardship <br /> and the recent costs of relocating her dog grooming business to a commercial space. The director <br /> explained that the issue centered on maintaining nonconforming uses—if abandoned,the <br /> grandfathered status is lost and the area must comply with current paving requirements. The <br /> board clarified that the case was not about preference but about code enforcement. When asked <br /> about remediation,the applicant estimated she could cover the nonconforming gravel and begin <br /> restoring the area within three months. <br /> The applicant testified that relocating her business had created an extreme financial hardship, <br /> with an additional$2,000 monthly expense, and she emphasized her efforts to serve the <br /> community through affordable pet grooming. She stated she had invested all her savings into <br /> both her home and new storefront and was struggling to manage further costs. She confirmed she <br /> would continue cooperating with the city to resolve the issue. <br /> Questions followed regarding whether covering gravel with soil could successfully grow grass. <br /> Staff explained that while possible, it likely would not produce good results. The Building <br /> Department clarified their concern that if the gravel remained, future homeowners might assume <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.