|
lot line depth. Mr. Labas appeared, and gave his interpretation that
<br />the measurements be made by measuring perpendicularly from the rear
<br />lot line to the corners of the house. This judgment indicated a vari-
<br />ance request was needed.
<br />Mr. Greene moved to anprove the request because of the situation the
<br />buyer, Mr. Mone, is in, as a hasdshiD case, and i:hat no other variances
<br />be granted in the division for the sa.ine reason. Mr. Klinite seconded.
<br />Ht tliis point, Mr. iRosser agasn disagreed. Messrs. Byers, Greene and
<br />Klinite voted to grant the variance. Mr. Schaar also voted for the vari-
<br />ance, but qualified ?zis vote by saying 11e did not believe a variance was
<br />necessary in his interpretation of Sectiorr 1163.02 (B) of the Zoning
<br />Ordinance. Mrs. Eian voted against.
<br />5. Appellant: Bruscino Development, Inc., 15411 Chatfield Ave, Cleveland
<br />11, Qhio.
<br />Ref: Request for Rear Yarci. Setback variances on the following sublots:
<br />Nos. 131 191, 20, 21, 22 Fawn Drive
<br />Nos. 39;40,41,42,43,44,45,46,54,56 Chase Drive
<br />Nos. 63,70,74,75,78,83,85 Deerfield Drive
<br />in the Manming Ca.mpbell Subdivision #8, Section 1.
<br />Mr. Ray Bruscino represented Bxuscino vevelopment, and began by asking
<br />for a variance in the Michael Varady Development. His request for a
<br />variance was received too late to be considered for the pctober 13
<br />meeting, and was therefore denied. Mr. Greene suggested a s pecial
<br />meeting for October 27, 1964 to consider the Varaciy Subdivssion request
<br />for varianceo
<br />in discussion of the -Na.nning Cam?ib ell Subdivision, it was learrL-d that
<br />the minutes of the September 17, 1963 Board Meeting indical:e that tl-e
<br />request for variance was approved for 82feet for the back yard. The
<br />original intention was for a 10 foot back yard variance.
<br />A4r. Klinite moved tnat the minutes of the September 17, 1cb 3 meeting
<br />be corrected to indicate the variance to be 10 feet instead of 82
<br />feet on sublots 19 to 67 inclusive. Mr. Greene seconded and the vote
<br />was unaniniaus. Because of the omission of interested neighbors from
<br />the list of peopl.e receiving the notice of variance request, the appli=
<br />cation was not considered, since proper notice t-aas not given. This
<br />request tivi11 also be considered at the Speciai Nieeting OctoUer 27, 1964<
<br />6e Appellant; Mr. 0. R. Pate, 20786 Lynhaven Drive, Nortli plmsted.
<br />Ref : Request for variance for side yarcl measuretnents f or lots in the
<br />Bretton Ridge Subdivision on which ranch home h?Todel J would be
<br />buil.t tota.ling twelve feet. Zoning Urdi.nance 62-33, Section
<br />1161.01, Sideline Ordinance, stipulates fsfteen feet.
<br />Nir. Pate requested the three f oot variance fox f if teen sublots on
<br />Stewart Drive of the Bretton Ridge SuUdivisian, out of seventy-four
<br />(74) lots on the s.treet, with no two Model J homes to be adjacent to
<br />eacn other.
<br />? Mr. Greene moved to grant the three-foot variance, on the condition
<br />that no two Mode1 j rancn homes be built adjacent to eaclz other, for a
<br />maximum of fifteen lots, and that in no case vuill the distances between
<br />houses be less than fifteen feet. Mr. Schaaf seconded. Vote was unanimous.
<br />3
|