10/24/1968 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B01?_R.D OF 70NIRTG -APPEALS - I0/2L,/68 - Page 2 Planning Commission and Council held public hearings in tliis regwrd. Therc has been no proposal made to change the zoning. Mr. Lontor stated that he would be willing to erect a fence along westerly area if the residPnts so d.esired and that he would keep the a.rea mowed. It was determined that the lights wouTd be facing north and that the homes are located to the west of the driv.i.xig range. Mr. O'tdeill stated that he wished to go on record as opposing the variance. PIr. Reis, Mr. Rqartin and Mr. Byar also stated that they object. Mr. Brehm stated that he--did not feel it would harm the homeowrierG and that it would mean that the property would be i.mproved and maintained. Mrs;.MoelZer was unclecided-but pointed out th.at although the area had been used 2s a driving range previously, it never had-lights and was used only during the day. Mr. Greene moved to deny the variance on the basis that variances are granted in cases of hardship oiaIy and since Mr..Lontor has not taken title to the land as yet, the boa.rd can see no ha.rdship involved. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. Motion passed. 4. Appella.nt: Topps Depp-rtment Store. Continua.tiog of rec;uest to erect a sign facing Brookpark Road west of Great Nortlzern Boulevarcl. Sign is in excess of ' per.nitted squarE foo'tage and is too high. Request is in viola.tion of Ordina.nce #62-33, SECtioil 1225.02. Present: Mr. Friecll from Marjak Development Co. hlr. Nelson explained tllat this case had been continued pending a ruling by the Safety Director regarding whethPr or not the proposed sign might constitute a traffic haza.rd, A Ietter from Mayor C13ristman (Acting Safety I}irector) st4ted that he had reviewed the matter wi.th the Police Department and that they did not feel that the sign would constitute a problem as long as there was mo direction4l arroir on the sign - that it be wholly informationaT.. Board membexs ruQstioned the need for a varia.nce in height and also for the requested 30 square feet in size. Mr. I'riedl stated that the size was standa.rd but that the sign could easil,y. Ue lowered to the a.llowed 1leight. It.wa.s brought up tha.t since the building and lot a.re so large, a smal1 sign might look out of proportion. Mcribers felt that an excess of 30 square feet was unnecessary. Mr. Roberts moved to contiriue tY3e case to the November meeting ixi the interest of lowera.ng the height and square foat a..rea; seeondec3 by Nir. Greene vmci passed. 5. qpnellant: Guy Famolar.e' 6785 Chadbourne Drive. Request for variance on existing auyillary buiJding locEited on }?roperty. Request is in violation oi restrictions for Bretton Ridge Subdivision hThich state that no building sh2II be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot ather than one detacl2ed single-family dwel.Iing. . Present: Mr. and Mrs. Fe.molzre, Mrs. Gutermann wlio recently purchased tlae Kored property., Mr. and Mrs, Hofflman, TVir. Long, Mr. I°Tood of 6726 Chadbousne and Mr. Smith of 6712 Chadbourne Mr. GuMdy stated that this case was brought beiore the BoLird of.Zoning Appeals not because of Bretton Ridge deed restrictions but because the Pla.n.ning Commission and Council determined that this tyne of builc?ing is not peimitted. tiir. F?malare is i1ere to anpeal rule since the Board has the power to grant a variance. A Ietter from Mr. Eiben, who resides directly to the reox of the property involved a.n.cl cTosest to the building uncler discussion, stated that he felt the builaing should be permitted to rema.in. Mr. F'amolare presontecl a petition sigMed by residents af Bretton Ridge saying that they wish the buiJ_ding to remain. Neighbors in attendance objected to a variailce being grantee7 on the basis that the deed restrictions prolubit it and that although the Famola.res keep their property in good orderj the next ownzer of said property could