07/02/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 2, 2009 ROLL CALL Mrs. Diver called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in Council Chambers. Present: Maureen Diver, Nancy Sergi, Laura Bellido, Jennifer Rudolph, Alfredo Lopez Staff: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Assistant Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerk of Commissions Donna Rote REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES Ms. Rudolph moyed, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to approve the June 4, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals minutes which were unanimously, approved 5-0. RESIDEIeTTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS William & Susan Ferrara: 25121 Randall Drive: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of replacing damaged patio cover requiring a 23 foot variance for distance of patio cover to rear property line; code requires 50', applicant shows 27', which is in violation of Section 1135.08(a). Mr. and Mrs. Ferrara, Mr. Michael Ferrara, the contractor, Mr. Willoughby, and Ms. Mason were sworn in. Mrs. Ferrara said the existing concrete pad and aluminum awning were damaged over the winter. It was decided to upgrade the design and materials of the awning and patio as well as all the landscaping and they were not aware the new awning required a permit until the patio was inspected. A permit was pulled and upon inspection they were advised that the distance of the awning to rear yard line would require a variance. Ms. Rudolph asked if the new awning was the same size as the old one. Mrs. Ferrara said it was slightly larger than the old awning and constructed with materials which match the existing roo£ Mr. Mitchell said the new awning extends 4 feet beyond the previous aluminum awning and includes new supports and roof line. The building department has no objections to the request. Ms. Rudolph said although the roof line was extended the new style enhances the neighborhood therefore she has no objections to the request. She does not believe the owner's predicament could be precluded without a variance due to the size and shape of the lot. Mr. Lopez said although the roof will improve the appearance of the property the roof could have been constructed following the preexisting footprint which would not have required a variance. Mrs. Bellido noted the yard was well kept and the new awning was an improvement. The home is in a cul-de-sac which lends itself to an odd shape yard and home placement. If the yard were straightened it wouldn't require a variance. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the variance was granted could the patio be enclosed at a later date. As an open patio the variance is not substantial but if enclosed it would be substantial and adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. She questioned if the approval could be contingent upon the patio not being enclosed. Governmental services would not be affected nor would the character of the neighborhood as long as it remains an open porch. Mrs. Diver said due to the size of the lots within the neighborhood she had no objections to the request. Mrs. Ferrara said that their lot was oddly shaped which factors into