01/06/1982 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 2, 1982 PAGE 2 The oath was administered. Mr. E. Kub of First Neon signs represented Mr. Silverman. It was suggested that Mr. Silverman should negotiate with Color Tile to share a conforming 50 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Kub stated that he was sure that Color Tile would not cooperate with this and reduce their existing sign. It was also pointed out that Mr. Silverman had 3 illegal tem- porary signs and had been taken to court by the City in order to have them removed. The signs are still up and the Law Director is planning further legal action. -Law Director M. Gareau stated that he recommends that the Board turn 'down any request from Mr. Silverman until he conforms with the ordi- nances and removes the illegal signs. R. Bugala moved to grant the variance, seconded by C. Remmel. Roll call on motion: Bugala, Remmel, Horvath, and Wasniak, nay. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. 3• Gary Porter, 5155 Dover Center Rd. Request for variance (1133.130. Request 6' variance between addition to house and garage. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1151.04 C. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. It was explained that the addition would be aluminium sided and the existing garage is brick. Building Commissioner Gundy stated that there would be no fire wall treatment'required with 14' between the addition and the garage. The internal floor plan has been changed but the ex- ternal dimensions will remain the same. W. jdasniak moved to grant the variance, seconded by L. Horvath, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. - 4. Hoty Enterprises, 25675 Lorain Rd. Request for variance (1133.13). Request set back variance for existing pole sign. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1221.06 F-4. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. Building Commissioner Gundy stated that this is not actually a variance because the sign is existing and should be considered a non-conforming sign because there has been a change of occupancy. It was pointed out that this sign. originally rotated and that too is non-conforming according to the present codes. Bill Aftoora of Impact signs stated that the new owner did not want the sign to rotate. The agenda should be ammended to request a special permit for a non-conforming sign (location). If this sign were moved to conform with the set back ordinance, it would have to be moved out of the land- scaped area and into the parking lot. The Board discussed taking the 'r.otating mechanism out of the sign, however, this would be difficult and the Law Director stated that if the sign rotates, he will prosecute. This pole sign will serve all the