10/24/1968 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' BoArn oF zorrTNG 1PPEALS - 10/24/68 - Page 3 aIlow the building to cleteriorate and become an eyesore. Mrs. Famolare explained tha.t to coMtra.ctor who built the buildiMg had told them that a building pelmit iqas not necessary because the building is not perma.nently fastened down and nbt on a cement base. It is therc:fore temporary in nature. NIr. Greene moved to continue the case to the November meeting.for the.purpose of Board members examinirg the property involved; seconded by Mr. Roberts and p4ssed. It was recs?uestea that a letter be sent to the Law pirector to accertain the legality of a variance being granted when deed restrictions are involtTed. 6. A;opellant: Dona,ld Schreiner, 24813 A-ntler Drive. Request to erect a detached garage 31 too close to the side line. F.enuest is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, Section 1151.04 which r.equires that a detached garage be a minimum of 51 from any property line. Mr. ATelson announced that Mr. Schreiner has withclrawn his request. 7. Appell?ant: Ken Solcol, 25II$ Deerfield Drive. R.Equest to erect a detached garage 21 too close to the side Iine. R.ec!luest is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, Section 1151.04 which requires tlkat a detaehed ga.rzge be a minimurn of 5s from any propert,y line. Present: Mr. Soko1 Mr. Sokol stated that house was incorrectly placedon the Iot ma.king it necessary to request this variance. He felt that a definite hazard would be created because of the sharp cut tha,t would be nECessary to pull into the garwge within irches of the house. Also, the car would drive over a corner portion of the patio which would soon crack the cement. IIe also stated that a Iarge tree would ha.ve to be removed if the garage *iust be 51 off the property line. Mr. Rronscoya, the next door neighbor, has no objections. Several persons on the street have had this same prob].em and have had to h?ve a variance in order to build their garages. :. Mr. Roberts rnoved to grant a 21 sideline variance; seconcled by Mr. Greene a1zc1 passed. 8. Appellant: John DiiVfichele, 24062 Fraaik, Street. Request to erect a detached garage 21 too close to side Iine and 21 too close to xear propertg line. P.eauest is in violation of Ordina.nce 11/62-33, Section 1151.04 whiclz requires tha.t a detaehed garage be a mini.mum of 51 from aily property line. Since the appellant failed i,o appear' Mr. Roberts moved to co?ztinue the case to the TTovember meeting; seconded by Mr. Greene and passed. 9. Appe112,nt: Anthony Martinich, 24274 Vincent Drive. Request to add an attached two car garage to existing dwelling. Garage addition would be 31t from rear lot line. Reouest is iia violation of Ordinance ;162-339 Section 1163.01 which requires a 50t rear yard. Present: 14r. Martinich nlr. A2zrtinich explained that with his 401 rea.r yard, it is impossible to build a.ny garage, whether atta.claed or cletached, without. a variance. His land a.buts vacant wooded property in the City of Westla,ke. PRr. Castle., liis next door neighbor, has i1o objections.