12/03/1969 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?- / .? ?r CITY OF N0R^1H OLP-4STED - BOAI?D OF ZONING .APPEI?.LS ? . Regular Meetitlg hela at City Ha.11 -- December 3, 1969 The meeti-ng was ca11ed to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman John RoUerts. Present: Mrs. Eian, Mssrs. Roberts, Davis, Lancashire Also Present: Mr. LeDuc, Buildiiig Department The minutes of the I1/5/69 meeting were a.pproved as written. 1. Appellant: James B. Olson, 24755- Fa-un Drive. Contiizuati.on of rec;uest to erect 61 fence around natio. P.equest is in violati:on of Qrdinance #62-33, Section 1151.04, fence not to exceecl 41 in lleight. Present: Mr. asic3 Mrs.. Olson Mr. Roberts stated that this case had been continued so that mew homeowners next door to the Olsons could be notifie'd of their request. The new owners (Mr. and Mrs. Logan) have iio objections to the fence. I.Ar. Qlson presen'ted a photo showing the closeness of the two patios on the narrow lots. He stated that there are other similar fences in the area. T'ne Board asked if a 51 fence wauld serve the purpose and Mr. Olson stated tha.t he would be in a.greenrient w?th this. It was noirted out that the fence wouZd not encirele the,Patio and was really a-windbreak. Mxs. Eian moved to approve a 11 varia.nce in height for 20t of fence alorg the west side of the patio; seconclea by Mr. Dav3s and unanimoUSly passedo 2. Appella.nt: Arthur Hogue, 4628 Colunbia R.oad. Co:atinuation of request-for varia.nce on existing partip- Patio enclosure 5' high ard 101 froni side lat Iire. Request is in viola,tion of Qrdina,n.ce #62-33, Section 1I51.04 which requireg that no part of such a wincibrealt be closer than 151 -to any lot Iirxe. (A 31 variaxice was oranted on 7/9/69). Pr. esent: Mr. Hogue (Son of Arthur Hogue), Mr. IIillians Mr. Roberts stated.that this case had been continued for the purpose of the Board riembers personG.lly inspec ting the fence in cuestion. It was d.etesxnined that the f ence is 251 from the izeighborts (Mr. Williams') house at the closest point. Mr. Williusns sta.ted that he objec'us to both the Iocatian md appesrance of the fence and waa3ts it moved back to the 121 distance for Wnich a variara.ce was granted on 7/9/69. It wa.s explained tl-iat there had been a.n error in measuring a7ad that if the fence werP 121 from the lot line, it woulC be right in the middle of the gar?.ge door. T13e fence cost in excess of $1?00 and Board z.nembers did izot feel tha.t it wa.s an eyesore. It Tras a1.so pointec out that an addition to the house two stories high could have been built in tlse same location. The fence's Toeation on tlze building didn't change - only its relationship to the side lot line. It wa.s felt that it would be more of aaz eyesore located in the middle of the door. P=Ir. Lancashire moved that since he felt an honest erxor had been riade and since the origina.l variance '_liad been gra.nted on the basis of hardshin that still exists, an additiona.l. 21 variance be granted with the stiDulation tha.t the -posts on tne west side be red.uced to corforra with hieght of the existing fence and tirith the reco.nraendation tha,t shrubbery. be pianted on the south sid.e of the fence. Mrs. Eian Geconred the motion. IInanimously passed. 3. AppeZlante FotoMat, proposed location 1V1,I Corner of Lorain and Walter Roads (corner of Buckeye T anes parking Iot). Reauest for varia.nce on nunber of parking spaces required. Request is in violation of OrdiMa.nce #62-33, Section I212.02 which sets riinimum parking requirements. Present: Mr. Smith and Mr. Greenwood (representing Fotomat), Councilman Virginia Hadgins, Mr. ?..nd Mrs. Lott, Mr. Borkland 1