|
, r . ' . . . . , , ' , . ' .
<br />'PLp.NP7ING COM!fIssIoN - lo/z4/h9 -' Pa.ge 3 .. , ,
<br />„ (c). Blosso?n Lanc? Co. Stxeet Openin?s '- Mr. Karhan sta.ted that he has received
<br />' sketches and drawings which he considers satisfactory but that no final
<br />linen is read3r'. Mr..-_Richards moved to approve S?ndy Ridge aibdivision #7 and #g as presented. Mr. B,yexs seconded the motion. Unanimously passed.
<br />' (d) Goellner Subd.ivi.sion '= 14r. Ledvina Stated that this 4ras h, erely clearing
<br />' up a technic^.1 omission since no Iinen was prepared back in 1965 when
<br />' thi.s matter wa.S passed'by the Zoning Board, Planning Comr,iission and Couri6il.
<br />° He has reviewed the ;,rints a.r_d inspected the Iot and founc7 aIl dimensions
<br />;R to conf.orm to all previou; minutes. 14r. Ledvina -noved to reapprove the
<br />, Tesubdivision o£ Porter Foaa tract re_f.erred to as the Goellner tract. 14r.
<br />' Ric}za.rds seconded the notion. IInaninously passed. '
<br />IV.. -New Develon~cents ?nd Subdivisions ' (a) N. Q. Subciivision - Mr. Kleine presented a proiDosal to divide one parcel
<br />,. , into "t't•TO and add the one portion to the cornEr parcel a.t. Berkshire and
<br />, . Lorain. He would be cutting a'niece off of one existing lot a.nd adding
<br />?. ; it to the corner existing Iot, Mr. P,ichards cited TaiilZet P,oad that dead
<br />.' encis into this one Ia.rge open parcel of I.a.nd. Mr. Byers moved to put
<br />'.? the N. a. Subclivisi.on into comittee. r1r. Ledvina seconded the motion.
<br />Unanimously passed. 'Mr. Ledvina wi.Il serve as chairraan of the committee
<br />' 2.r!d will be assisted by tiir. Esgar. Mr. Kleine was r. equested to submit a
<br />revised c3rataing to i•Ir. LPclvina, prior to the next meeting,
<br />AII_yls Resubdivision - Mi^. A11.y presented plans for resubc7.ivision of a
<br />lot at Mastick and Colu.mbia Foads into three lots. Mr. Byers moved to
<br />put.the -oroposal into committee. Mr. Richards seconded the motion.
<br />IInaninously pasGed. Mr. Byers w-ill head the committee assisted by Mr.
<br />Richarcl.so V. ' Communications
<br />. (a) Building Departrnent Report - I,
<br />(la) Notices of Commercia1 PlF.ris filed s•rith Building Departr,ient, '
<br />(c) yetter from F. Kitson reauesting that the vaca.tion of Northern be denied
<br />' (d) Letter frol-ii Mr. G?3uner re: F.esubdivision ori Columbia Foad
<br />, (e) Letter from Bur?ce, Haber & BPrrickre: proposed condominiurn on Lorain Road
<br />VI. Connittee Feaorts -? None ' VII. , New Business • , , '
<br />Dzscussion was held.regarcling.Councills deletion of Section 1 of Ordinance
<br />69-13I. It was d.ecided that Section 2 should also he d.eleted.. Mir. Ledvina
<br />moved to notify Council that the P1anning Co:nr.tission recom.mends that both
<br />, Section 1 and Section 2 of 69-132 be deleted.. Mr. Byers secQndea the motion.
<br />Unaniraously passed.
<br />' 14r, Byers raised the r.uestion of why P•..inella's nad been granted a' buildinit '
<br />permit for an addition when their building is non-conforming and no special
<br />nermit 11ad been oran ed y e Zans.ng oard o npea s. Mr.'Lord explair.ed
<br />, that in a recent ruling,,the Law Department had stated that the setback is not part of the yard,regula.tions and that on this basis, Rinella's most
<br />probably was not non-conforming. He stated that the Law Dena.rtaent feels
<br />, that the word "setback" shoul.d be included in the ordinancee Mr.,Ledvina '
<br />• ' moved that in order t,o clarify the ordina.nce that under I23I.01 "front setback,
<br />' reax setback and side yard requirements't should be ac7ded for the pizrpose of
<br />i ' Iz t'z f'it'i 4- r n
<br />, ?,. ? •en _ca on o a non-conlorming building. Under 1,231.02 (B) t,he end of
<br />, ??;- ' ? " ' ? , ', ; , . , ?,? •
|