My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/01/2026 Minutes
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2026
>
Building and Zoning Board of Appeals
>
01/01/2026 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2026 1:04:56 PM
Creation date
7/15/2026 12:58:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2026
Board Name
Building & Zoning Board of Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/5/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
IT <br />F <br />BUILDING & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 5, 2026 <br />ROLL CALL <br />Mr. Ammons called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in Council Chambers. <br />Present: Neil Ammons, Ralph Mackey, Roxana Galateanu <br />Staff: Director Max Upton, Building Coordinator Katie Seeley, Law Director Michael Gareau, <br />Administrative Assistant Lyn Wilson <br />RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />340-2025; Mercedes Lux; 5854 Stearns Rd. <br />The applicant presented a request for variances to allow a catio accessory structure and attached <br />tunnel partially in the side yard and closer to the side lot line than permitted. She explained the <br />structure was for enclosed daytime use for her cats, stated she was unaware a permit was <br />required, and noted the project had already been completed at significant cost. A neighboring <br />property owner opposed the request, arguing there was no hardship and raising concerns about <br />property maintenance access, fire risk, construction quality, and drainage. Staff clarified the <br />structure was considered a single accessory structure under code and that the requested setback <br />variance was required. <br />Mr. Mackey made a motion to approve the variances as written; seconded by Ms. Galateanu <br />Board members discussed the dimensions and setback of the catwalk portion of the catio and <br />whether reducing its width would create additional maintenance space for the neighboring <br />property owner. Staff clarified that the board could only consider the modified plans formally <br />submitted and before them for the vote, not potential changes mentioned in testimony. It was <br />also clarified that while the rear portion of the structure had been adjusted in the revised plan, the <br />portion along the side yard remained unchanged and still required the requested variance. <br />Motion Failed: 3-0 <br />356-2025; Nicholas & Sarah Sinur; 5398 Columbia Rd. <br />The applicant's architect presented a request for a variance to allow a 910 -square -foot attached <br />garage, exceeding the permitted 750 square feet by 160 square feet. The proposal involved <br />demolishing the existing detached garage and modifying the driveway, eliminating a previously <br />requested variance so that only the garage size variance remained. The architect explained the <br />additional space was needed to accommodate an ADA-compliant wheelchair ramp within the <br />garage to provide safe and accessible entry for the homeowners' daughter who has cerebral <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.