My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/03/2025 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2025
>
Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
11/03/2025 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2026 1:05:09 PM
Creation date
7/15/2026 12:57:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2025
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/3/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 NOVEMBER 3, 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, Ralph Mackey <br />Staff: Building Coordinator Katie Seeley, Law Director Michael Gareau, Administrative <br />Assistant Lyn Wilson <br />MINUTES <br />The minutes of September 22, and October 6, 2025; were submitted for approval; all in favor, <br />none opposed. <br />RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />340-2025; Mercedes Lux; 5854 Stearns Rd. <br />The board opened Case 340-2025 regarding a proposed "catio" accessory use at 5854 Stearns <br />Road and swore in speakers. City staff outlined three requested variances: allowing a non - <br />permitted accessory use, allowing part of the structure in the side yard, and reducing the required <br />five-foot side setback to two feet. Guidance was provided that the board needed to decide the use <br />variance first before considering the area variances, and the case was to be reviewed as if the <br />structure had not already been built. <br />The applicant explained the work had started without permits due to misunderstanding and said <br />changes could be made to increase separation from the neighbor's fence. A neighboring resident <br />supported the concept but raised concerns about the structure's proximity to the property line, <br />inability to access and maintain the fence area, drainage and snow/ice shedding, and lack of <br />engineering/roofing considerations. Staff noted the permit had been applied for after inspection <br />and denied, and discussed that if the use variance were granted, the applicant could potentially <br />revise plans to reduce or eliminate the need for additional variances. Questions were raised about <br />whether the setup should be treated as an accessory structure or an animal shelter, and staff <br />indicated that option had been reviewed and was not found applicable. <br />Mr. Mackey made a.motion to approve the use variance request; seconded by Ms. Galateanu. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.