Laserfiche WebLink
?,? ?w,>r?• <br />Great Northern Shopping Center, for a 77 squa.re foot variance for total sign area <br />allowed for a wall sign, a variance for a 2nd wall sign on unit; and a 60 square <br />foot variance for total signage allowed for a business unit, seconded by B. <br />Grace, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. <br />15. Corso's Restaurant (Szarka's Restaurant), 29691 Lorain Rd. <br />Request decision of building official pertai.ning to installing 6 foot fence <br />which is excessive in length and height. <br />Heard by Board of Zoning Appeals September 2, 1992. <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was <br />administered to A. Szarka, the owner, L. Szarka, his son, Councilman Nashar, Mrs. <br />Gladwin, a neighbor, and her son in law, Mr. Plunket. Chairman Gomersall <br />explained that this request is back for the board to reconsider and review the <br />last determination at'which time a variance was granted conditional on certain <br />landscapi.ng, a fence, and a guardrail being installed. Mr. Grace stated that <br />after the September meeting he again looked at the property and there were some <br />things that he ha.d not taken into consideration. He believed that the board had <br />put a financial burden on the Szarka's requiring them to install that length and <br />type of fence so- he had asked that this be reheard. He clarified that the <br />adjoining property is zoned commercial, even,though there is a home there. The <br />amount of money required to put in 170 foot of fence was asking too much of the <br />Szarka's. Secondly, if Mrs. Gladwin was-to sell her house, the barrier would have <br />been installed for nothing. The board must also consider the feelings of the <br />business that has been there for as long as the house has been there. Mr. Plunket <br />stated that the project was allowed to go in ba.sed on the fence being installed, <br />if there was undue hardship it should ha.ve been brought up at that time. Now that <br />the addition has been constructed, the issue is being brought up again. Mr. <br />Purper noted tha.t the representatives present had agreed to the fence and gave <br />the members the impression that they would be paying for it. Mr. Grace believed <br />that he had made a mistake which should be rectified. Mr. Gomersall agreed. Mrs. <br />Gladwin believed that any promises made on September 3rd should be kept, and <br />noted that the fence was again discussed on December 2nd arid questioned why it <br />took the members that long to decide that this was a burden. L. Szarka clarified <br />that they intend to install the fence, they are merely arguing the length <br />required, they do not believe tha.t the last 50 or 75 feet serves any purpose. <br />Mrs. Gladwin stated that this was discussed previously and she agreed to the <br />variance and since they were not able to put in the 10 foot landscaping barrier <br />required, her only recourse was the fence. She stated tha.t she spends a great <br />deal of time in her yard and the whole yard is important to her. La.w Director <br />Gareau stated that, after the last meeting and once again after tha.t, he brought <br />it to the board's attention that they should look at policy of providing privacy <br />fences between comercial properties; the board could dictate a brick wall and a <br />month later the property could be sold, thi:is eliminating the need for privacy. A <br />subsequent similar fence request was refused. A ferice to shield from lights might <br />be acceptable, but to have it the whole length of the property made no sense. <br />Councilman Nasher was advised that there was little room for landscaping on the <br />side, but some landscaping has been added. It was clarified for Mr. Nashar that <br />the length of the fence was the issue, the members believed that t.his is an <br />overkill. There will still be a 120 foot fence. Mrs. Gladwin stated that the 2-Z <br />feet of green area between their properties is overgrown and she has had to <br />maintain it in the past. There was a diseussion about where the front landscaping <br />started and the fence began, Mrs. Gladwin maintained that the plan is not correct <br />and a car could park right beside her house before the fence starts. Mr. Skarka <br />stated that the fence will start where the first parking spot begins. Mr. Plunket <br />9