10/07/1981 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

> . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 7, 1981 PAGE 2 conforming front set baek) to add attached garage to existing dwelling. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1231.02. Chairman Remmel aalled all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. L. Horvath moved to grant the variance, seconded by R. B.ugala, and unanimously approved. 4. Patricia Kilbane, 3191 Clague Rd. Request for variance (1133.13). Request 3` variance between pro- posed addition and garage. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1151.04C.. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. It was pointed out that there is already a small addition on now that is non-conforming and this addition will not increase the existing distance-between the house and garage. L. Horvath moved to grant the variance, seconded by C. Remmel, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. 5. Jerry Silverman's Carpet Mill Outlet, Inc. 26103 Lorain Rd. Request for variance (1133.13). Request variance to use tempor- ary "A" frame sign in front set back area. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1151.04C. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. Mrs. Silverman stated that without the sign the business had decreased by $135000. in a 5 day period and that a permanent sign had been applied for. There are two other banner type signs,one on the rear of the building and one on a,truck parked in the parking lot. The permanent sign had-been approved by Council on October 3rd. C. Remmel moved to grant the variance for both,_ the "A" frame sign and the banners, seconded by W. Wasniak. Roll call on motion: Remmel, Wasniak, Horvath, and Bugala, Nay. Variance denied. . 6. J. E. Cowher, 3447 Hunter Dr. Request for variance (1133.13). Request 14' variance between proposed addition and garage. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1151.04 C. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered. The Board was in.agreement that there would be little open.?sgace left in the yard since this is a 35' addition and that the adjacent neighbors would have a wall 75' long on the sidelprope)rty•line. Mr. Cowher explained that there is another home on their street with the same type addition, and that the neighbors did not object since this gave them more privacy. Upon further examination of the site plan, it was decided that the plan was not to scale and did not show the property-correctly. It was suggested that the site plan be redrawn to scale and that go.s- sibly an alternate plan could be devised with a smaller-variance required. It was agreed to continue the case until next month. Case continued.