04/04/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUILDING & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2016 ROLL CALL Chairman Raig called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm in Council Chambers and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Eric Allain, Michael Raig, Bob Papotto, Melissa Meredith, Donna Sabo Staff: Planning Director Kim Wenger, Law Director Michael Gareau, Assistant Building Commissioner Dan Russell, Administrative Assistant Nicole Rambo REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES Ms. Sabo moved, seconded by Mr. Allain, to approve the Building & Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of March 7, 2016, motion passed 5-0. RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS 16-5415; Andv & Lisa Morales; 5113 Park Lane Representatives: Andy & Lisa Morales, owners Proposal consists of a 6 foot high board on board fence. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for a 6 ft. high fence located on a corner lot within the front building setback of the abutting lot on the side street; code does not allow, applicant shows a 6 ft. high fence on a corner lot within the front building setback of the abutting lot, Section 1135.02(f)(2). 2. A variance for a board on board fence in the front building setback; code permits a 50% open fence, applicant shows a solid board on board fence, Section 1135.02(f)(1). 3. A 42 in. variance for a 6 ft. high board on board fence in the front building setback; code permits 30 in., applicant shows 72 in., Section 1135.02(f)(1). Ms. Wenger stated that zoning is One Family Residence A. The property is at the intersection of Park Lane and Mastick Road with frontage on Park Lane. Existing fencing will be removed. A new solid wood 6' high fence would enclose most of the back yard area. A setback of 15 feet from the sidewalk is proposed. The code allows a fence in the front building setback (50 feet) so long as it is 50% open and no more than 30 inches high. Mr. Morales stated that they own three ciogs and the existing fence is in disrepair. He submitted letters from the neighbors stating that they approve of the proposal. Mr. Morales believed the fence would not interfere with traffic or visibility around the corner. Ms. Wenger pointed out that a fence could be installed to enclose a portion of the backyard that could conform to code. Mr. Papotto clarified that the fence would be the same style as the neighbor's fence. Clarification that lot frontage along Park Lane is length of property 50 feet back from the property line. Ms. Mer.-dith confirmed that the fence would be 15 feet from the sidewalk to allow for visibility from the driveway. Mr. Morales did not believe that a shorter fence would keep their dogs contained and protected from other dogs in the neighborhood. Mr. Papotto believed the applicant would be maximizing their yard space by enclosing the yard they have while keeping the fence off the sidewalk. Mr. Allain did not think that the fence should go beyond the front of the garage or that it should be 6 feet high.