04/04/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED "TOGETgIER WE CAN iVIAKE A DIFFERENCE" BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - APRIL 4, 2002 I. ROLL CALL: Chairman 1Vlaloney called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PRESEN7': Chairman J. Maloney, and Board members, W. Kremzar, T. Kelly, J. Konold, and N. Sergi ALSO PRESENT: Asst. Law Director, B. O.'Malley, Asst. Building Commissioner, T. Rymarczyk, Asst. Clerl.c of Commissions, A. Kilbane II. REVEEW AND CORRECTION OF MINLJTES: The Board of Zoning Appeals minutes of March 7, 2002 have been submitted for review. Mr. Konold made a motion to accept the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kremzar and vnanianously approved. Chairman Maloney indicated there are fourteen cases requesting 24 variances and one special permit. The board members have viewed the premises invblved in each case. Three votes are required for approval. Each case will be judged on its physical situation peculiar to itself, and in no way is any judgement rendered considered to be general policy judgement affecting properties or like situations elsewhere. III. BUII_,DING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: 1. Jeffrev Maund; 5721 Dorothy Drive; Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a fence. The following variance is requested: 1. A:?4 foot variance-for erecting a fence along side property line higher than 30" and less than 50% open (code permits 0, applicant shows 24 feet), section (1135.02 (f)(1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (f)(1)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Jeffrey Maund came forward to be sworn in and to explain his request. He indicated he would like to extend a fence out to Midvale R.d. because he lives by the high school and he gets a lot of traffic, as well as kids cutting through his yard. He indicated he has spoken to his neighbors and they have no problem with the fence. He referred to photos he brought in and pointed out the fence would not obstruct the view in terms of traffic. Mr. O'Ma:lley addressed the board and asked about the diagram that was submitted for this proposal. He said the diagram he has suggests that there is a split rail fence on the sideline at the present time. Mr. Maund inclicated that the fence will be coming down. Mr. O'Malley questioned if the split rail fence is 30" in height or less with more than 50% open space. He said the existing condition is more or less in compliance with the code other than its location. Mr. Kremzar asked if the entire split rail fence is coming down. Mr. Maund indicated the fence will come down in his back yard. It goes around his entire house and he will remove it where he intends to put the new fence. Mr. Maloney commented that it should give the Maund's the privacy they need for their backyard. Mr. O'Malley pointed out there is another matter that he discuss•ed with Mr. Rymarczyk concerning the way the variance is set up. He referred to the way number seven (7) on the agenda is described. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that it was revised. Mr. O'Malley then pointed out that he had not received the revision. Mr. Maloney said he has a 24' variance for side yard set back on the corner lot, and a 42" height variance for erecting a fence higher than 30" in the side yard set back, and a variance for a fence in the side yard set back which is under 50% open. It is all included in his revised proposal. Mr. O'Malley requested a copy of the revised request. He questioned if it would be less than a 24' variance. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated their side yard is 25' as shown on the plan. Mr. O'Malley conferred with Mr. Rymarczyk on the plans to confirm the figures in the request. Mr. O'Malley commented that there are different interpretations under the code and he made reference to the amount of the variance for the side lot line fence. He said that IVIr. Rymarczyk suggested the variance be under subsection (f)(1), which measures from the location of the front of the house. Mr. O'Malley referred to the map and said