04/02/1963 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F It, Board of Zor_ing Appeals Apri1 22 1963 Meeting ff 3, Appellant: Mx. Samuel F. DeSanto, Jr., 21585 Center Ridge.R.d., Rocky River, ar (President of the D ouble D Auto Ranch, lnc,) Reference: Request for permit to locate offices and showroom for a USED CAR OR REPA1R OF TJSriD CAR business at 23L143 Lorain Rds, SAj,E, S AND MIN N. Olmsted, Ohic. Board of Zoning .Pppeals was asked for its interpretation of the clescriPtion for a"Showroom". See (?rd. 62-33s Cha.pt er 1173„02s, Section (G), Page L1.qo (There is r_o appeal for a variance of the Code)a P?°esent at Meeting: Mra Samuel F. DeSar_to, Jr. (Fres. oy DD A,uto Ranch, Tnc.) Mr. Jack Dougherty (Fartner) Mra Frank Spiegel, Attorney at I,aw Neighbors: Robert and George Christman., Christma.n Flowers, 23538 Lorain D7rs. Stutz, Stutz Focds, 2300 Lorain Mr. Reehorst, Reehorst Cleanersg 23459 Lorain Appe].lant proposes to use the thxee car garage in back of proposed office buiZding' as a showroom. It is Law Director ScYaaf's opinion tha.t existing building in its present state is not, or could not, be considered a showroome It is now just a garage and was so constructed.for that purpose only* ' Appellant advised that ne-ir plans are in the working by J. Pe Kadylak Com Inc.;, front oi garages w9.11 be all glass with sliding doors, Plans wi1.l be subm.itted,? Objections; Robert Christman and George Christma3.z. "Used car 1.ots are u..npleasan't' (a) big nuisance, and end up lookin.g like a junk yardp We would like to see the East end of town beautified." .Pippellant a.dvised that they intended spending a lot of money on this property; it would not be an eyesore; they would make it attractive. (b) Mrs, Stutz. $ttended meeting for additional information. She questzon.ed the brightness of the lightsp Appellant advised there vaoul.d be no strong lightsw Mercury, (.c) Mr. aeehorsts A,ttended meeting for additional irLfornation. He questicned whether a 501 lot was large enough for the purpose planned. This 500 lot question brought eut the fact tra-t the l.ot is not 80t as first indicated 1y appellaizts Mr. GundJ had questioned the discrepancy between the legal description held by the prcperty owners and the countJ documer_ts. Appellant advises that -the intent is to make th.is an 80t frontage, and arraiigements are under wa.y to lease 301 from Sohiots -- the service statien adjacent to ?oto Appellant wi.ll present a letter to this affect. ? Board questioned whether a 501 lot could be used ior the intended purposeW Appellant advi-sed that the use may be requested on a 50t lot onl.,y ar_cl this is permissible in the State of Ohic; they need ha.ve only(ten cars for display on lot. «a 2 *;w