07/13/1966 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes' Board of Zonir_g AppeaZs July 13 ., 1966 Page 2 that if this is not done3 after aperiod o£ year and upon certain steps., -fkie • area wi.1l revert to the City of North O:Lmstea. 1,1ro Scheeff felt that som..e stipul.ation shoutd be made Vrhereby Mr. Yeager would have some protection an t.kie future, that if any chaxEe in the set-up would ever be made., he should be entitled to a chance to purchase 4 ft. so that his home would have proper s-i.deline s Mr. Lombardo said he Uaished to check fu.rther ixito the by-laws of tl-B Association anci to investigate how an arrangemert could be set up whereby Mro Yeager' or any sibsequent owrn.er of this parcel' diould have first chance to purchase 4, ft. shov.7.d any char?gge be made in the present park set up. Mre Scheeff made a motion that this hearing be continued to Sep-tembar 7., 1966, meet9ng. Second by Mrs ByersO Motion passede 3. Appellart0 Mr. Thomas C. LaPonza' 6639 P4cKenzie Rd, North Olmsted Request for variance to build a patin taith roof over it, at rear of home. Mstance between patio and existing detached garage., wi]1 be 4 fta Request is 3sa, viol.ation of Section 1151.04 Sub C.$ which reauires a detached garage to be 20' .from dtiTell.ing on t1ie same 1ot or any adjacert lot. Pir. LaPonza presented his pl.ans., stating it was their Dntention' if thEy keep this property, eventua].1y to ma,ke roofed-ovc;r patio into afamily Tbom. Plans ax°e to make patio 20 0-vra.de by 16 t deepo Present detacYed garage is of a nature that it is not perrn3.tted by Building Code to attach a breezeway to it. Mrs. E.aPonza sa14 adjacent neighbor' Mrsm Ha"11.er 6625 McKenzie, had no objection, A letter of objection from ivIr. Arthur U3issmann' 9611 MeKenz3e9 was read, Mr. Scheeff felt that it was not advantageous to bui:Ld a roofsd-over patio so close to garagee He suggested thaic the patio slab without roof be built, which does not need a variance to build. He felt that inasmuch as there is a419 setback from garage to rear lot line, at sorE time it might be possble to move the garage back9 thus aZloitring the construction of fami.ly room with proper distance between garage and dwe1.].iiag„ He moved to tux°n dowra the request 'to build a patio wi.th roof. Second b,y Mr, Byers. Mota.on passedo 4. Appellant; Mr, Robert P. Saxer., 3436 Dawn. :1)r.., Nort,h Olrrsted RequBst for variance to erect a d.etached garage which V'ri11 be l12' from house; also., di.stance from garage, at front corner,, to north sideline, will be 21. Rsquest is in violation of Section 1151.04 Sub C9 which requires a detached garage to be so located that no part of sme shall be withan 20' of a dtiJelling on tkie same lot or an.y ad,jaeent lot' or withit2 51 of any property line of the lot on which the same is locatedo 0 NLr. Saxer explained that because property at rear of his house slopes considerably, it muld be ampossible to build garage proper distance from the house. The Board felt it was not advantageous to build garage on tl,g slope, as construction af garage ti,rould have to be so alterecl at rear in order to maintain the:;.laeight leve7.. Lot is on cul-de-sac wi-th frontage of 321 and wid-L-h at rear of lot' 1211.