[ back ]
Apology for permit problem not enough this time
(by Sue Reid - February 18, 2009)
Apology for permit problem not enough this time
By SUE REID
Solon's planning commission unanimously rejected a variance last week meeting for a storage building constructed with the wrong rear-yard setbacks.
It was the second meeting in a month where variances were requested for structures built in violation of city codes. Earlier, City Council upheld the approval of the planning commission, which voted 3-1 to grant a 6-foot rear-yard variance for a resident who constructed a deck in violation of the code.
City Planner Robert S. Frankland said the planning commission and council look at each situation separately, which they are required to do with variance requests. "It's a distinct situation," he said of each case.
The planning commission tends not to penalize people for constructing buildings without permits, "if they would have approved those buildings anyway," Mr. Frankland said.
"What they want to do is to have stricter penalties if people are caught," he said. "They should not take punitive measures and not grant a variance that they would otherwise be required by law to grant."
At its last meeting, the commission heard from resident Neil Gloger, who requested a variance for a storage building at 37600 South Oval. He said he was seeking a setback variance for the shed "we improperly constructed without knowing the zoning in advance." He apologized to the commission.
"My hope is to not have to de-construct the fence," he said. Because his lot has a fairly steep grade, it becomes difficult to find a spot where he could put a shed without incurring the high cost of building a foundation, Mr. Gloger said.
Linda M. Fowlie, a city planner, told the commission that the applicant submitted a permit application and site plan for the storage building with it shown at the required minimum 10-foot setback from the rear property line. The certificate of zoning compliance was issued with the 10-foot setback, she said, but an inspection by the building department questioned whether the structure met the required 10-feet setback. The shed is located as close as 4.5 feet from the rear lot line, she said.
Mr. Gloger's neighbor, Gary Miller, at 37560 Fox Run, who attended the meeting, appealed to the commission to not grant the variance, because the shed creates a hardship for him.
"Frankly, it looks like it is in my front yard from the street, and the view from the house is not pretty either, Mr. Miller said.
"That's why we have ordinances, and I ask that it be upheld."
Commission member George K. Hrabak told Mr. Gloger that he was aware of the 10-foot setback. "If there was a hardship and you came before the planning commission before, a variance may have been supported," he said. "In this case, I'm less inclined to support the variance."
Commission member William M. Mazur said he viewed the shed, and it appeared to be in the front lawn of the neighbor's property. "You should put it behind the gentlemen's garage," he told Mr. Gloger.
Mayor Kevin C. Patton, who is a member of the planning commission, said he agrees "wholeheartedly" with Mr. Hrabak and Mr. Mazur.
"There was evidence that you were aware of where it should be placed," Mr. Patton told Mr. Gloger. "You should have come to the city before installing it. You may have seen more leniency than you will tonight."
Commission member Roger C. Newberry told Mr. Gloger that he shares the same peculiarities with his own lot, which is why he does not have a shed.
Mr. Gloger said he and his wife had the shed put up before knowing they needed a building permit. "I came in as an innocent homeowner. You are right, mayor. I should have come in advance," he said.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Gloger said that, if the variance were not approved, he will move the shed, but it will cost thousands of dollars in excavating work to put it on level ground. "There is a financial hardship to do this," he said.
Councilman and committee member Lon D. Stolarsky said he viewed the property, and there are other locations to put the shed. "Financial considerations are not considered as need for a variance," he said.
"I'd be more lenient," Mr. Hrabak said, had it not been for the objections of the neighbor, Mr. Miller. "You might want to work with your neighbor to provide screening," he told Mr. Gloger.
"If you had come to us before, I would have voted against it anyway," Mr. Mazur said. It is not in the proper location, he said.
After the vote, Mr. Stolarsky told Mr. Gloger he had the right to appeal the decision to City Council.
Calling the situation "unfortunate," Mr. Frankland said, "He did apply for the permit, and it did indicate that the proper setbacks were being provided." But the building was being constructed with wrong setbacks, he said.
Mr. Frankland said the zoning inspector regularly uncovers such situations.
"There is going to be discussion about expanding the building inspector positions to zoning inspector positions," he said.
[ back ]
