09/04/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

house to the closest shed is approximately 100 feet and the neighbor to the west has an identical setback. Ms. Ksiezyk, the resident living directly behind this parcel, presented pictures displaying the impact on her property. She feared the 16 blue and white baxrels along the property line may contain hazardous waste. Chairman Gomersall advised this meeting is not about the banels. Ms. Ksiezyk explained she has contacted the building department about the barrels, but nothing has been done. Mr. Rymarczyk advised Mr. Sabol has been cited for the banels. He has thirty days to remove them unless he can give a legitimate reason to keep them there in an orderly fashion. In response to the Ms. Svetz's request, Mr. Gomersall advised the second variance request is due to the fact the shed in the front of the pool is too close to the western property line. Mr. Gomersall wondered if Mr. Sabol would be willing to move the shed in the back somewhere out of 1Vds. Ksiezyk's view. Mr. Sabol argued that moving the back shed to the front of the pool would be inconvenient. Mr. Gomersall explained that the board ma.y not be willing to grant the variance for the second shed. Ms. Ksiezyk wondered if Mr. Sabol is permitted to operate a business out of his home. Mr. Gomersall advised this is not a part of the variance request. Mr. Purper also requested that the shed be moved to the front.of the pooL Mr. Sabol did not wish to place the shed in the middle of his yard and would rather remove one of the sheds. R. Gomersall moved to grant Paul Sabol, 28382 North Park Drive, a variance to keep a second shed on the property.. The motion was seconded by J.. Maloney. Roll call on motion: R. Gomersall, no; J. Maloney, no; T. Koberna, no; and W. Purper, no. Request for variance denied. R. Gomersall moved to grant Paul Sabol, 28382 North Park Drive, a four (4) foot side line variance for existing shed. The motion was seconded by T.. Kobema and unanunously approved. Variance granted. - Ms. Ksiezyk questioned which shed would have to be removed. Mr. Gomersall advised Mr. Sabol can pick whichever shed he would like to remove. Mr. Sabol wondered what the size requirements are for a shed. Mr. Kobema advised sheds have to conform to the code which is up to the building department to determine. Mr. Rymarczyk advised the shed behind the pool conforms to. the code. Law Director Gareau explained both sheds can be torn down and a 200 square foot shed constructed that conforms to the code requirements. Ms. Ksiezyk questioned what is in the blue and white bairels. Mr. Rymarczyk verified the barrels are empty. 5. Donut Connection, 27624 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Request 20 foot .variance for location of ground sign (to replace existing pole sign) and a variance for location of ground sign within the 35 foot prolubited triangular area. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1163.11(a).and 1163.12(b). NOTE: GROUND SIGN IS NON-CONFORMING AND MUST BE REMOVED BY 1/1/98 iJ1VLESS EXEMPTED FROM SECTION 1163.26. Chairmau Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath-was administered to Mr. Woost, sign contractor. The members did not have a problem with this variance request. Law Director Gareau advised he received a complaint from someone about having to.tear out and replace the footer when - replacing these signs. He questioned the necessity of this requirement. Assistant Build.ing Commissioner Rymarczyk advised the footer is considered a part of the structure and thus has to be removed. Mr. Kobema advised the depth of the footer depends on the type of sign. Mr. Woost did not believe ground level footers had to be removed. Mr. Rymarczyk explained for any demolition the excess debris has to be removed. He clarified this includes footers that are ground leveL Mr. Gareau wondered if this would have to be demolished if it can be reused for the new sign. -Mr. Ryrnarczyk advised if it can be reusedihan that is fine, but if it is not being used it has to be demolished. 3