Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br />CI'I'Y OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2008 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Chairwoman Diver called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm in Council Chambers. <br />Present: Maureen Diver, Nancy Sergi, Laura Bellido, Jennifer Rudolph, <br />Absent: Robert Menser <br />Staff: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Building Commissioner David Conway, <br />Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote <br />Mrs. Diver advised all board members viewed each site and three votes were required for <br />approval. Each case is judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a <br />judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like <br />situations elsewhere. Applicants were aslced to address all seven area variance standards noted. <br />REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to approve the May 01, 2008 Board of <br />Zoning Appeals Yrainutes as written, which was approved 4-0. <br />RESIDEIVTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: <br />Micliael & Eva Neeson; 25147 Antler Drive: (Ward 2) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new shed. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 32 square foot variance for a storage shed larger than allowed, code permits 80 sq ft; <br />applicant shows 112 sq ft, which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (d)(1). <br />Mr. Neeson the owner came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Neeson said <br />they would lilce to replace the existing shed with a new slightly larger shed then allowed by code. <br />The existing shed is 8'x12', they are allowed an 80 sq foot shed and would like a 112 square foot <br />shed which is 2 additional feet. The shed would be the same style and angled 90 degrees to the <br />west to match the neighbors shed and the door will face north. The shed will be inward 2 feet <br />+/ to malce sure the swell is not interrupted. The existing shed needs to be replaced it is not an <br />einergency but needs to be replaced as the roof is deteriorating. The neighboring sheds are in <br />much nicer condition and they would like to improve the aesthetics of the area. <br />Mr. Conway said the shed is 40% over what code permits and noted that the existing shed <br />exceeded what is allowed by code as well. Prior to the current code allowance the lot was <br />allowed a 70 square foot shed and the new code allows 80 square feet. Mr. O'Malley reviewed <br />that the shed ordinance was updated June of 2007 whereby a grid was established for the various <br />lot sizes to determine shed sizes allowed. <br />Mr. Neeson showed the board photos of the existing shed location and suggested he had notes <br />from his neighbors stating they had no objections (note: no such notes were submitted). Mrs. <br />Sergi said the property could continue to malce a reasonable return without a variance and the <br />variance is substantial. Ms. Rudolph the yard is beautiful but the shed is too large for the size of <br />the yard. Mrs. Diver said government services would not be affected and the zoning code is <br />presumed to be known by all owners and the applicant's predicament can be precluded without a <br />1