09/17/1963 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Zoning Appeals Sept. 172 1963 Nleeting - Page 2 Brookpark Rdo on one side9 the conunercial frontage of Lorain Rd, on the other side., the third side will be a 701 boulevard, and the fourtii side will have a corrunon side yard with the rear line of the Columbia ;Roa.d sub].ots. There will be no infx°ingements, Nlrs. F. Wil7.iams, 4650 Columbia RdO, presen'ued a petitioi-i dated Sept. 5' 1963a signed by Columbia Raad home owners as 'uhey are the people in closest proxiznity to the subdivision, indicating they were in favor of the type hames proposed and the granting of certain rear yard variancesm Columbia Road residents have seen the Fairview Park homes and feel that the North Olmsted area would be up-grraded by ha.ving a similar type allotment of harnes, The tax duplicate ror North Olmsted also will be benefited. Mrm Biskind further statsrl.tha.t he had consulted tq-i.th Mr. George Schaaf, Law 13irector, and was advi.sed that the Board of Appeals had the authority to malse the final decision on -the granting of these varianessm Qppellant backed up Mra Biskindes statements, adding that variances would be asked only on the larger homes and the number of requests would depend upon the sal.es m Four model hames, possibly five, are involved. Turo types wi11 require a variance. Appellant flarther stated that he had a large investmen-t tied up in this project and if variances were denied, he could not wait for a length of time before starying to build homes of lesser -type struc°turee Mr. Morgan and ivir. Byers ha.d suggested setting up a Commit-tee eonsisting of Board members and representatives of the Planni.ng Commi.ssion and the Council, to again rev3ew Vlds request before making a decision. Mro Gundy felt that the Zoning Ordinance should be more ilexible for instances such as presented and he felt the Board Vaould be in order granting the variances. Mr. Nlon- gello of the Planning Commi.ssion advised that their Board is nota discuss?.n.ng the modification of this rear yard cecle requixement. Mr. Henry Casver, a Council Member, has heard the arguments pro and con. Iriasmuch as only a back yard variance is requested, he favors larger homes on sinaller lo-cs because.of the tax duplicatea He stated, howevex°, that the Zoning Qrda sets up space requixements simply to preserve space in the city and not to jam everything onto each o•bher. This should be looked into before ary variances are granted. Lat7Director Schaaf was askecl to sit in on the meeting for his legal, opinion. Mxe Schaaf fe3.t that if the Board was satis:fied that the type homes proposed are . better for the city, the variances should be granted. This subdivision is an area not bound by aiVone el.see If there jsere others affect2d, then the Board would have to stick to the letter of the law. Under the circums•tances., Mr. Schaa.f fe],t that the Board wouZd be in order granting the requested variances with the provision that all garages be atta.ched a11 the way thru, including the cornor lotus. Mr. Schaaf further stated t hat granting this pa.rticular variatzce need not set a precedence. Notion moved by Mr. HI.i-ni.te tha•t variances not in excess of 151 be granted on the cer-tain homes tha.t will require a variance, but all ho,-nes must have attached garages. Niotion seconded and approved by Messrs. Greene and Morgano Mr. Byers did not approvem r 2 w