09/07/1966 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M-inktes9 Board ai Zon3_nF _".nne-aZ.s Pz ge 4 Septerr?be r 7 9 1966 _ Mro and Tfrs m Grasser zel 'u that addition wou]d in no Tviay afiect neibhbors privacy or aetract fram eantinuity o.f o;her properties in areaf Home • was bui1.t in 1958 with 391 rear yard0 Because 1.ot is pie-shaped and on curve, .fron-t yard setback varies irom 52 t0 55, with sidelanes of 17' at the narrowest point on east sidA and 12' on tize 'trest sideo ^they hase dis- cussed plans with neighbors' who d.o not object. I?'irsa Bian moved to grant the variance. Second by N'?r. Nelson. Moiion passedo 100 Appellants Joseph E. 'Iasick9: 26961 JWha.tethorn, North Olmsted Rea,uest for variance for a fence along rear of property. ?'ence is 51 high,, liequest is in v? oJation oi Secti.on 1151.04, H tiahich establishes maximum fence height of 4' m Mx, Tusick said he e-rected i,he fence in I'iay because neighbors to the west had dogs whose barking was annoying. Dogs nipped one of his children. Sance erection a?' fencs barking has been almost non-existenta A car in non.--use had been parked in Jard for a long period of tune and ti,ras an eyesore. He felt fence was attractive. He sai.d it was 10 boards high (each board 5zt) with a 3ts rist at the bottom. Mr. Haas oi 5072 Whitethurn, was pr'senta He did not object, ,Said fence was 41 adjacent to his property. Mr;.Esson of 5071 Iindrus was presentm IIe said fence ti,ras 4-i to 5' along his property. He did not object. tilro and Mrs. Udva-rdy' 26975 Whitethorn9 owners of the dogs' were presentm They objected to the 'Ught of the fence alorg their proper-'uy. The Board suggested a compromise of 9 boards high (5321P each) pl.us a 31' rise,, Mr. Nelson moved that avarianee of 4't over the established height be uranted. Second by Hr. Schee£'f, Motion passed, 114 Appellant: Ston,*ybrook FZeal.i;y Coea 7600 S-?a?-te Rdm9 Farma, Ohio xzqu0st,;for:variance to erect a ?.1x?.' real estate advertising sign on corner .I,orain Rdm and Pvrk :Ri.dge Drivs (28711 Lorain) Reauest is in violation of Sect-ion 1225.01 C2 which states a subdiv?sion deve7.opmentsign ehall not be located within 100 ft. irom any occtipied residence, and shal.l be within the subdivision being developed and vaxthin 500 ftm of the dezTe °lopment a Niro John Itahl of the fzrm saicl they represented three bui.lders in Park Ridge, ti,rith 25 lots, six of which are Soiao He said he had secured pe-rmission from PZrse Pierson to pZace sign on her property9 sign -to be approximately 30' from her homem Sign is to be placed so as not to obstruct tra.ific view on f o:cain. by drivers leaving Park R'1dge. Mr. Gallagher, 28644 Loraa.ti (across street) was present but had no objectionQ Mxo Nelson moved to gtant the variance' szgn to r2main up ior a sixsnon.th period on1y. Mrs. Eian secondeda Motion passed, 12a Appe7.lanta Concord Corp.' 114305 Wash3ngton Blvdo, Univ. Hts.9 Ohi.o Request ior variance to bui? d a home witlz attached garage ? on S/I, 78y 24356 Noreen Dro, Norih Ulms ted, with front yard setback of 401. Req,uest is in violation of Section 1159e019 Urhich requires 501 front yard setbacko Mr. Tu1ly Lipidvs of Concord, said lot was 135055 deep. There is a drainage