My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/13/1991 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1991
>
1991 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
02/13/1991 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:58 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 5:53:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1991
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
2/13/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
<br />to obtain one. They believe that the lessee is concerned about giving up <br />property because of the amount of parking that they need. It was decided to <br />vote on the issues separately. B. Grace moved to approve the request for 12, <br />7, and 14 foot variances for the width of driveways exceeding the maxiimun <br />allowed to rebuild existing ga.s station; also to grant a variance for a drive <br />which is only 33 feet rather than 60 feet from the nearest intersecting street <br />line for the Shell Oil Company, 23385 Lorain Road, seconded by T. Restifo with <br />the condicion that the 13 parking spaces be removed as stipulated by Planning <br />Commission. Roll call on motion: Grace, Restifo, Gallagher, and Maloney, yes. <br />Mr. Gomersall, no. Motion carried. Variances granted. B. Grace moved to grant <br />the request for a 16 foot front set back and a 25 foot side set ba.ck variance <br />for a canopy for the Shell Oil Company, 23395 Lorain Road seconded by E. <br />Gallagher. Roll call on motion: Grace, Gallagher, Maloney, and Restifo, yes. <br />Mr. Gomersall, no. Motion carried. Variances grantedo B. Grace moved to <br />grant the request for a 4 square foot variance for one side of a pole sign with <br />the notation for the record that the developer agrees to keep the directional <br />signs at 4 square feet or less for Shell Oil Company,._.seconded by T. Restifo. <br />Roll call on motion: Mr. Grace, yes. Restifo, Gallagher, Maloney, and <br />Gomersall, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. <br />2) Thomas .E. Romane 3673 Hunter Drive. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 3 foot side yard variance _for shed <br />(build.ing permit issued for conforming location). Violation of Ord. 87-93, <br />Section 1135.0-D4. <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administered to Mr. Romane wiio explained that when he applied for the <br />building permit, he thought he could comply to the requirements. However <br />because there is a large rock at the location, he had to move the shed over. <br />This corner is the best place for a shed because it is shielded by trees; the <br />middle of the lot is frequently under water; and there is a stonn sewer on the <br />other side. No neighbors were present. Mr. Grace stated that he has no <br />problem with the location, but is concerned that.they built the shed before <br />coming to the Board for a variance. Mr. Maloney is concerned that this is too <br />close to the utility pole. Mr. Romane stated that there would be room enough <br />and that he did cut down some trees so they would have access. T. Restifo <br />moved to grant Thomas E. Romane, 3672 Hunter Drive, his request, for a 3 foot <br />side yard variance for a shed, secondecl by R. Gomersall, and unanimously <br />approved. Variance granted. <br />3) Barton Lorain Animal Hos ital 30732 Lorain Road. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 6 foot, 8 inch variance for location <br />of ground sign (already installed). Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1163.06- <br />(f)2. <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administered to Dr. and Mrs. Davis who presented the original plan and <br />explained that the sign would have conformed to the code, but the Planning <br />Comnission had requested a change and the sign had to be moved. The approved <br />plans showed the wall for the sign exactly where it is located, and no one ever <br />mentioned that it did not conform. The contractor built the wall, bu* a permit <br />could not be obtained Lmtil they lmew exactly what type of letters they wanted. <br />Apparently the.sign contractor they hired to install the letters failed to get <br />a permit. They believe that the Planning Commission should have advised them <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.