My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/07/1988 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1988
>
1988 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
09/07/1988 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:19 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 4:14:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1988
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/7/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 PAGE 3 <br />6. Robert Metro, 7145 Barton Road <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 4 foot set back variance for swiming <br />pool. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02-L. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Metro who explained that Pool Town in Middleburgh Heights <br />had installed the pool and he believed that they had obtained a permit. Mr. <br />Conway stated that the Building Department is trying to make Pool Town obtain <br />a license and get the permit. B. Grace moved to grant the request for a 4 <br />foot variance for a swimming pool in voiolation of Ord. 87-93 for Robert'Metro, <br />7145 Barton Road, seconded by R. Bugala, and unanimously approved. Variance <br />granted. <br />7. Kenneth P. Cervenak, 5738 Decker Road <br />Request special permit to add second story to non-conforming dwelling (front <br />and rear set back). Special permission required Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08(a). <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Cervenak and C. Foster. •Board had no problem with the <br />request since this alteration should be an improvement. R. Gomersall moved to <br />grant the special permit to add a second story to a non-eonforming dwelling <br />(front and rear set back), special permit required Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08(a) <br />to Kenneth Cervenak, 5738 Decker Road, seconded by J. Helon, and unanimously <br />approved. Special permit granted. Mr. Remnel explained to the audience that a special permit is usually required <br />for older homes, and is usually an improvement so there is very little dis- <br />cussion necessary since the Board has seen the property. <br />8. Fred Korey, 3292 Clague Road. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 40 foot rear yard variance to con- <br />struct breezeway between house and existing detached garage (garage would then <br />be considered part of the dwelling). Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08(a). <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Korey and Mr. Frye, contractor. Board agrees that this <br />would be an improvement. Building Commissioner Conway stated.that the garage <br />wall closest to the house would have to be fireproofed in order to attach the <br />garage. R. Bugala moved to grant the 40 foot rear yard variance to construct <br />a breezeway between the house and the existing detached garage for Fred Korey <br />at 3292 Clague Road as long as they meet the requirements of fire wall on <br />which side is necessary as determined by the Building Department, seconded by <br />R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. <br />9. James Quinones, 25310 Gessner Road <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to have 4 foot fence around <br />pool (6 foot fence on property does not completely enclose yard). Building <br />permit for fences was issued. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02-L. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Quinones who explained that a buiding permit.was issued <br />after the drawing showed the 4 foot fence around the pool and the 6 foot fence <br />not completely surrounding the yard. Mr. Ouinones stated that had he known <br />the requirements of the ordinance he would have installed the pool in a dif- <br />ferent location. He advised that the 4 foot fence around the pool is always <br />locked. Mr. Remmel stated that many suburbs only require a 4 foot fence
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.