My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/01/1987 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1987
>
1987 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
04/01/1987 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:04 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 3:44:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1987
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/1/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 1, 1987 PAGE 4 <br />wide roadway. Chairman Remmel stated that the request now before the Board <br />is for the depth of the lot, the other issues are not involved here. C. Remmel <br />moved to grant the variance as outlined in the request, seconded by R. Gomersall. <br />Roll call.on motion: Remmel, Gomersall, Bugala, and Helon, no. Motion failed <br />to pass. Variance denied. <br />8. Thomas E. Wallenhorst, 23548 Clifford Dr. s/1 95. <br />Request 12 foot front set back variance to construct new dwelling. Violation <br />of Ord. 62-33, Section 1159.01. (Will be heard by the Board of Building <br />Code AppeaTs on March 26, 1987 for permission to build on a 50 foot lot.) <br />Cliairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administ.ered to Mr. Wallenhurst and his son. Chairman Remmel was <br />advised that permissi:on was granted• by the Board: of Building Code Appeals <br />to build the house on a lot 50 foot wide or less. Mr. Remmel stated that <br />this variance would keep this house in line with the houses on either side <br />of it, and that none of the houses. on this street appear to have a 50 foot <br />front set back. R. Gomersall moved to grant the request by Mr. Thomas <br />Wallenhorst for a 12 foot set back variance to construct a new dwelling as <br />indicated on these prints, seconded by R. Bugala, and unanimously approved. <br />Variance granted. <br />9. Mitlon W. Gates, 5813 McKenzie Road. <br />Request special permit to add dormer to non-conforming dwelling. Speeial <br />permission required by Ord. 62-33, Section 1231.02. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administered to Mr. Gates. Mr. Remmel stated that this property is <br />very well kept. C. Remmel moved to grant the special permit to add to a <br />non-conforming dwelling, seconded by R. Bugala, and unanimously approved. <br />10. Michael and John Humenik, 25021 Linda Dr., s/1 34 <br />Request for variance (1133.13). Request 6.63 foot rear yard'variance to construct <br />dwelling. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1163.01. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administered to M. Humanik, J. Huminik, and neighbors, P. Stamer and <br />Mr. and Mrs. Mull. Proposal caas explained to neighbors. Mr. Bugala ex- <br />plained to the developers that if they ever wanted a covered patio, they <br />would need anotlier variance and that this Board would be reluctant to grant <br />it. Neighbors voiced no objection. R. Gomersall moved to grant the 6.63 <br />foot rear yard variance to construct a dwelling as requested by Michael and <br />John Huminik, seconded by C. Remmel, and unanimously approved. <br />11. Neal Knoepp, 27008 Sweetb riar Dr. <br />Request for variance (1133.13). Request 1 foot variance for fence and <br />variance for fence on corner lot (not 90% open). Violation of Ord. 62-33, <br />Section 1151.04-H. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before ttie Board. The oath <br />was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Knoepp and Mr. Henahan, a neighbor. Mr. <br />Remmel explained that the Board is reluctant to grant va'riances for 6 foot <br />fences, especially on a corner lot where.a 90% open fence is required. He <br />believes that such a fence.would give a stockade effect on the corner. Mr. <br />Knoepp stated that he needs some privacy and his patio screen is deteriorat- <br />ing. Mrs. Knoepp stated that this fence is something like a picket fence <br />,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.