Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2010 <br />ROLL CAI,L <br />Ms. Sergi called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in Council Chambers. <br />Present: Nancy Sergi, Maureen Diver, Jennifer Rudolph, Laura Bellido, Alfredo Lopez <br />Also Present: Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Building inspector Paul Grayshaw <br />Staff: Law Director Michael Gareau Jr., Building Commissioner Dale Mitchell, Clerk of <br />Commissions Donna Rote <br />REVIEW AND COI2RECTION OF MINUTES <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Belliclo, to approve the May 6, 2010 minutes which <br />passed 5-0. <br />RESIDENTIAL APPEAI,S AND REQUESTS <br />Mohomed Ali; 5464 Jacqueline Lane: <br />Request for variance (1123.12); proposal consists of an addition and the following variance is <br />requested: <br />1. A 15 foot rear yard setbaclc variance for a residence too close to the rear property line; code <br />requires 50', applicant shows 35', section 1135.08 (a). Note: Lot is on a cul-de-sac and is shaped <br />odd. <br />Mr. Mohomed Ali the owner and Mr. Eddie Dunlap a neighbor were each sworn in. Mr. Ali said <br />he would like to convert his existing deck into a four season room. His home backs up to woods <br />and due to the amount of bugs they can not use their deck area. The room will be cooled and <br />heated. Mr. Dunlap aslced for someone to show and explain the plan to him as his notice says the <br />addition is too close to the property line which concerns him. Mr. Mitchell showed and <br />explained the plans to Mr. Dunlap. Mrs. Sergi questioned if there would be siding, windows and <br />if all materials would match the existing home and Mr. Ali said yes. <br />Mr. Mitchell said the variance is for the rear setback as code requires 50 feet and the addition <br />will be 35 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Dunlap asked if the addition would be any closer <br />to the sideyard line than it currently is and Mr. Mitchell said no. Mr. Dunlap said he had no <br />obj ections as long as the sideyard setbacks are maintained. Mr. Mitchell noted that the lot was <br />irregularly shaped as it is located on a cul-de-sac which affects the setbacks. A brief discussion <br />ensued regarding the size and location of the new sidewallc being installed which met code and <br />would not affect the neighbor. Ms. Rudolph did not feel the character of the home would be <br />affected nor would governmental services be altered. Mrs. Sergi felt that although the property <br />could yield a reasonable return as is the addition was an improvement which would not adversely <br />affect the neighborhood.