My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/02/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
11/02/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:51 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 8:20:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/2/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />, - .. <br />granted. W. Pwper started to make a motion when an adjacent neighbor, Mrs. Wolf <br />approached the board. W. Arnold explained the plans to her and advised that he had shown the <br />plans to her husband. Chairlnan Gomersall then administered the oath to her. She had been <br />unable to attend the Plauning Commission meeting, and was concerned about the parking in the <br />back. She would like to have a fence adjacent to her property. Mr. Arnold stated that he had not <br />planned a fence since they had so few cars, were primarily a day time operation, and were rarely <br />there on the weekends. Mrs. Wolf explained that the parking lot will be beside their property and <br />the Plain Dealer parking lot is to the rear. She repeated her request for a fence. Building <br />Commissioner Conway advised that fencing was not up to this board, but the proposal will be <br />going to the B.Z.D. Committee of Council and she could make her request for a fence to them. <br />It was noted that both properties are zoned for Limited Industry. She stated that she would not <br />be able to attend, but she would send a representative. W. Purper moved to grant a request to <br />Ashton Norris, 3169 Lorain Road, for a variance to have a loading zone in the front set back and <br />to grant a variance not to have either 10 foot side landscape buffers (drive would be on one side <br />aud wheel chair ramp on the other) Please note: existing build.ing is non-conforming since it is <br />less than 100 feet from right of way, and does not have the required 20 foot side yard setback. <br />Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1145.07 (table). Heard by Planning Commission on October <br />11, 1994 and by Architectural Review Board on October 19, 1994. The motion was seconded by <br />W. 1Vlaloney, and unauiinously approved. Variance granted. <br />3. Cupachino's, 23420 Lorain Road. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request variauce to keep existing ground sign which is <br />encroaching in the 35 foot restricted triangular area stipulated for comer lots. Violation of Ord. <br />90-125, Section 1163.04(h). <br />Chau7nan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to <br />Mr. Montgomery, representing Cupachino's. Building Commissioner Conway explained that <br />they had received a permit, but the sign was placed 2 or 3 feet inside the 35 foot restricted <br />triangular area. The members agreed that there was really no other place to put it and it did not <br />lunder visibility. T. Koberna moved to grant the request of Cupachino, 23420 Lorain Road for a <br />variance to keep existing ground sign which is encroaching in the 35 foot restricted triangular <br />area stipulated for comer lots. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1163.04(h). The motion was <br />secouded by W. Purper, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. <br />4. James Dunn, 4162 Laurell Lane, <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 9 foot rear yard variance to construct addition. <br />Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.08(a). <br />Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to <br />Mr. Duun and neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Sidum and Mr. Korylay. Mr. Duun explained that he <br />wanted the variance to put a 12 by 16 foot structure on the rear of his home. Mr. Sidum <br />submitted a statement objecting to the request. Mr. Gomersall stated that they are objecting <br />mainly to the dog, which is not what is being discussed at this time. They have complained <br />previously to Mr. Dunu about the dog and the dog warden was notified that it was a nuisance. It <br />was clarified that since this is an enclosed structure, putting the dog on the porch would not <br />create more of a nuisance. Mr. Duun stated that this was not the forum for a dog complaint and <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.