Laserfiche WebLink
Minuted, Board o£ Zoning gppeals <br />-kugust 3, 1966 Page 3 <br />signed letters from Mr. and Mrso Anderson, 24232 TrFoodmere' adjacen-F? <br />neighbors, and Mrm and IZrs o Jackson' 24249 Fairlawn, whose propsrty abuts <br />? in rear, stating they had no objection to tYe variance4 Mro Scheeff made <br />a motion the variance be gxanted. Sscond by Mrs. Eiane Motion passed, <br />4e Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Jos.LoWatts9 24299 kmbour Dro, North Olmsted <br />Request for variance to erect a 141 x 16' family room at <br />rear of home o Dis tance f rom i amily ro om to rear lot 1ire <br />ti•rould be 46'b,11@ They are reques-tin,g 31614 variance, Re- <br />quest is in vi.olation of Section 1163.01, Yahich requires <br />501 rear yara setbacko <br />Mro Kibler of Karby Bua.ld.ers, 7543 Morningside, Bedford9 representeci the <br />appellanto He said homes abutting in rear have 501 setbacks. iYirs. Eia.n <br />moved ta grant the varianceo Secor.d by NSr. Byerso iqotion passed. <br />5. AppelZa:nt: Sudkamp Ford Inc.' 26890 Lorain tZde ., N orth Qlmsted <br />Request for variance to install barbed wire top strands <br />on exista.ng chain linl€ fence. Reqzest is in violati.on of <br />Section 1151p04 Sub H which states 01no electrifisd or <br />barbed wire fence shall b e erected or installed at any <br />location«o <br />Mra I,eo MartynoTvski: service rr.anager., represented the firm. He said -vrith <br />present fence access is easye They have experienced cansiderable th?ft anci <br />vandalisme Recen.tly trespassers have been dismantling new cq_rso The chain <br />link sence has not helped and the insurmce company infosmed them rate woul.d <br />be doubled or coverage cancellec@ He said children do not play in this area <br />and had nevex climbed tYE fence' and feit tnis woula not present a safety <br />hazarda He said compa-iies in C1eveland such as theirs usec$ barbed wi.re. <br />Fence is behind the buiZding9 away from tlm s treet, and has three sides. <br />Mr, Henry Gaster2 coun.ci.lman, who was present, felt the ardimnce, when it <br />was written, Uras written from the standpoint of the resid.ential areas. No <br />tkiought o'L protbct,ian of commercial areas was givenm `le Board vaas of the <br />same. opinion. <br />Mre Nelson movea that tlm variance be granted.,, Sacond by 1~4r. Scheeffp <br />Motion passedo <br />6. Appellant: The Orlean Coa,, Rma8109 Ke3.th Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio <br />Request for uariance to erect a home on S/L 105 Doe <br />Drive (25046) which wi11 have a rear yard setback of <br />38t44m Depth of lot is 1381449, houae, 501a Reqtzest is <br />in violation of Sectian 1163.01' Vahich requires 50' rear <br />yard setback0 <br />Mr. Mark Taps represented t?B firm and presented hous.e plans. NIr. Fioritto <br />who resides across street' was present. He felt granting a variance would <br />set a precedent. He said in the advertising or the homes price was given <br />with attached and without attached garages, <br />? ]3uilder formerly building in this area had appeared before the Board ask- <br />ing ior a blanket setback but was told to come in on each variance' as <br />a11 lots are short,, tynically 63' x 1381. An attempt was made to s e1Z <br />lesser value houseswhich would fa.t the lots, but tihey did not sell.