Laserfiche WebLink
- 1: ' 1 -1 <br />to have them. Mr. Ulewitz stated that he would have no objection to the variance <br />if the building was existing, but believed that variances should not be granted <br />for a new building. Mr. Rooney has no objection to the plans especially since the <br />abandoned gas station will be eliminated. He requested that the curb on the <br />corunon property line remain because it helps a flooding problem. IyIre Pozek <br />presented a plan showing the buildable area.of this lot, and explained that they <br />only needed a variance off Lorain, not off Dover Center. He pointed out that this <br />is about the smallest building that could be put on this property. The nembers <br />agreed that this would look better than an abandoned gas station. Mr. Koberna <br />questioned if there were going to be right turns only because of the traffic. Mr. <br />Pozek advised that this wi11 be discussed at Planning Commission. W. Purper moved <br />to grant to Rally's, 27208 Lorain Road, their request for a 25 foot front setback <br />variance to construct a drive-thru food service outlet with the condition that <br />the variance be tied in with Planning CorrIInission recommendations with regard to <br />the access, seconded by B. Grace, and tmanimously approved. Variance granted. <br />Building Commissioner Conway advised that he had a request from Corso's'(heard <br />September 2, 1992 tmder Szarka's Restaurant) to change some of the stipulations <br />of the variance. Chairman Gomersall administered the oath to J. Patterson and L. <br />Szarka; representing Corso's, and Mrs. Gladwin and her son, D. Glad`qin, neighbors <br />to the east. Mr. Conway explainEd that the Board had granted the variance based <br />on a fence and a guard rail being installed along the length of the paxking area. <br />During the renovation of the restaurant, Mrs. Gladwin was concerned that a 6 foot <br />fence Noould not be high enough in certain areas. The Building Department went <br />back to the owner of the property who subsequently has requested not to install <br />the fence as far back as stipulated. Mr. Patterson stated that when he agreed to <br />a fence, he was not totally familiar with the property next door and thought the <br />fence was to go to the neighbors fence, not along an area behind her fence which <br />is an open field. Yir. Szarka was not present at that meeting. Mrs. Gladi,Tin <br />clarified that this was a temporary fence to keep her dog contained, her yard <br />goes beyond the fence. Mr. Szarka questioned the need for a guard rail along with <br />the fence pointing out that there were trees and growth along the line. It was <br />explained that the parking pattern was changed with the construction of the <br />addition and more customers would be parking along her line. She had advised that <br />a car had gone onto her property previously. Mr. Szarka explai.ned that an elderly <br />customer skidded through the fence accidently about 16 years ago. Mr. Gomersall <br />stated that this was why a guard rail had been required with the fence to insure <br />that headlights did not shine into her property which is lower than his. Mr. <br />Szarka questioned if this was reasonable and pointed out tha.t other businesses <br />adjacent to residences on Lorain were not required to have fences; and questioned <br />why it had to be installed next to the field. The members stated that this is a <br />residential parcel.and the Board must honor her concerns. Mr. Maloney suggested <br />that if that parking was restricted in the back, the fence could be reduced. Mr. <br />Szarka believed that the existing trees were more pleasing than a fence. Mr. <br />Grace responded that a partial fenee would look like an unfinished project. l7r. <br />Szarka asked if the fence could be installed in the Spring. Mr. Conway explained <br />that he would not grant an occupancy permit until the fence was conpleted, unless <br />the Board stipulated otherwise. Mrs. Gladwin stated that she had agreed to a 6 <br />foot fence, but she did not realize that the part of the parking lot was 2 feet <br />higher than her property in certain sections. It was pointed out that the <br />headlights would still be shielded. Mr. Koberna would like to look at the <br />property again. The other members believed the fence should remain as originally <br />stated. In reference to delaying the construction of the fence, the members did <br />agree to allow them a 30 day extension from the day the restaurant is opened to <br />7