Laserfiche WebLink
v 1 9 <br />Chaunnan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was adininistered to Mr. and <br />1VIrs. Paul, who advised that they did not know they could have two sheds. Mr. Gomersall had no problem <br />with the request siuce the sheds had been there for years, that they were adjacent to three sheds on the next <br />door neighbor's property and 1480 was belund the property. Mr. Purper started to make a motion, when a <br />ueighbor in the audience asked to be heard. Chairman Gomersall aciininistered the oath to Mrs. O'Donnell, <br />who explaiued that she was not the complainaut in this case, but when she saw the "variance requested" sign <br />she asked the Building Departmeut what it was for. She explained that she looked into putting in a shed, but <br />after reading the restrictions she decided not to, and now used her garage for storage, leaving her cars <br />outside. Her neighbors put up the sheds with out a permit, and have taken this opportunity to complain <br />about her cars not being in the garage. She advised that in forty years she has lived there she has not filed a <br />complaint with the city, but since she has the oppomuuty to express her opinion, she wants it kuown that <br />she does uot want to look at 5 storage buildings in two yards. She disagrees with the variances, especially <br />for 40 square feet, since she cauuot have such a building. Mr. Gomersall determined that her house was 115 <br />fEet from the barn. The Pauls stated that one shed was put up in about 1989 and the other a year or two <br />later. It was uoted that the uew codes had allowed larger sheds. Mr. Koberna advised Mrs. O'Donnell that <br />she could always request a variauce for a larger shed. Mrs. O'Donnell stated that the 40 square foot variance <br />and five sheds iu two yards were too inuch. The inembers had no problem with the request. W. I'urper <br />moved to grant the requests to Victoria and Mike Paul, 5897 Louis Drive for a variance to have two sheds <br />on property (ah-eady iustalled); a 2 foot, 6 iuch side yard variauce for the location of both sheds; and a 40 <br />square foot vaiiance for the area of the secoud shed. Violatiou of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1135.02(d)(1); <br />1135.02(D)(4); and 1135.02(D)(1). The motiou was secouded by T. Koberna, aud unanimously approved. <br />Variances granted. <br />4. Thoinas Beck, 24177 Rosita Lane. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Reyuest 4 foot rear setback vaiiance to construct addition. Violation of <br />Ord. 90-125, Sectiou 1135.08(a). <br />Chau-mau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admuustered to Mr. Beck <br />who wants a 4 foot rear yard variauce. The members had no problem with the request. R. Gomersall moved <br />to graut the request of Thoinas Beck for a 4 foot rear setback variance to coustruct an additiou. Violation <br />of Ord. 90-125, Sectiov 1135.08(a). TZie motiou was seconded by J. Maloney, and unaiumously approved. <br />Variance grauted. <br />5. Donut Conuection, 27624 Lorain Rd. <br />Request for variauce (1123.12). Request variance to have two wall signs; request vaiiance to keep <br />prolubited pole sign; and request vaiiance for 5 square foot variauce of excess business use signage. <br />Violatiou of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.12(A); 1163.22(A); and 1163.11(A). Alternate request 5 square <br />foot variance for excess signage for a business use. Request variance for side lot 1'vie encroac]imeut (will <br />preseut site plau at meeting). Request location vaiiance to place sign in prolubited triangular area. Violatiov <br />ofOrd. 90-125, Sectiou 1163.11(A); and 1163.12(B). , <br />Chan-inan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to N4r. <br />Trowbridge, owner, aud 1VIr. Woost, sign coutractor. The applicants were aware that the pole sigu would <br />have to be removed by January 1, 1998, aud only intend to use it until that time. Tliey questioned the <br />vaiiance for two wall signs, since they only asked for one. It was decided that the inspector had included the <br />logo sigu that is ou the building at present aud wluch they plan to keep. J. Maloney moved to grant the <br />request of Donut Conuection, 27624 Lorain Road to have two wall signs; a variance to keep prolubited pole <br />3