My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/03/1969 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1969
>
1969 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
09/03/1969 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:36:57 PM
Creation date
2/1/2019 3:42:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1969
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/3/1969
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CITY OF NORTH OiMSTED = BOARD OF ZONTNG APPEALS <br />? <br />Regular Meeting heTd at City Ha.ll -- September 3, 1969 <br />The meeting wca.s called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chaixman John Roberts. <br />,hose present: IArs. Eian, Mssrs. Roberts9 Greene; Lancasha.re <br />•llso present: 14r. Gundy, Build.i.ng Comnissioner <br />The minutes of the 8/6/69 raeeting were approved as vrittena <br />1. AppellGnt: Walter Sivek, 2499/+ Randall--Drive. Request to erect a.Iumti.rzum patzo awning <br />and screen-in Datio Iocated 35' fro:a rear lot lineB Request is in violation <br />of Ordina.nce ,?..??62-33, S^rttion 1163.0I which requires a 501 rear yard. <br />Present; Mr. Sivek <br />12r. Sivek sta-ted that he had polled each of the neighbors who were sent notifications and <br />that none of them hacl any objection to his proposal. He explained that he wants to cover <br />a-nd screen-in the patio in order to provide a bug-free area for his family wkiich includes <br />a baby. A rear yard variance was originally gra.nted the builder. Mr. Sivek's proposal <br />was strictIy for a screen-in patio - not a year round room addition. Mr. Greene moved to <br />grant a variance of 151;_seconded by Mrs. Eian and unaninously passed. <br />2, Appellantt Shell OiI Co. Renuest to erect a service st;:,,tion on NE corner of Lorain <br />P•.oad ond Berkshire Drive qrith a 351 rear yard. Request is in violation of <br />Ordiuance-#62-33, Section 1I7/+.06 which requires a 501 rear yard if any <br />part of the rear line is adjacent to a residential district. <br />Present: Mr. Pratt (representing Shell Oi1 Co.), Mr. Jacl{? Mr. VTebstor, Mr. Harlow, Mr. <br />McLaughlin, Plro Lavelle9 trire Ga.llagher, Mr. Walrath, Mr. Hodermorsky, Mr. Snyder <br />?+Ir. ?'ratt presented a revisecl pIan which he stated She11 f?il telt would eliminate the need <br />for a variance since the building had been moved'over, However, Mr. Gundy pointed out tha.t <br />the ordiilance states 11501 rear yard if any par-t of the rear Iine is adjacent to a residential <br />district." It was his opir_ion that a variance =.aauld still be requiredo Mr. Roberts read <br />a letter from Mr. Job-n Jack' Presiden-t of the t4est Park -Forest Ridge Civic Association, <br />stating that they strongly oppose any variance being granted. Mr. Jack tdebster stated that <br />the Park Ridge Civic A.^cociation nad al.so sent a letter opposing the granting of any var.i-a.n.ce. <br />He restated their objections.. Mre .McLau;hlin stated that he feels that he and his w.ife. <br />would be the--ones.to.suf£er most if a variance was granted. They Iive in the first house <br />on Berkshire iinmediately adjacent tt3 -the proposed site. He statecl, that they absolutely <br />oppose any varianCe and .fe21 that it iS the city's obligation to uphold the code. Mr. <br />Harlow, Mr. Rademaker, lTr, -Lavelle and Mr. ?Jalrath a.ll stated that they opposed the variance <br />requesto Mr. Gallagher stated that he is the owner of the property involved ar_d that ne <br />obj ects to the involvement of the Forest Ridge and Pa "rk R.idge Civic Associ:ations and that <br />he wants the right to se7.l his property for corunercial ptzrposes. lr1r. Hodermorsky asked why <br />a resident of Sherwood Drive should be allowed to voice his opiniona It wa.s pointed atzt <br />that -this was a Public Hearing. Mr.-Snyder questioned the Boa.rd rebarding the amount of <br />Lorain R.oad :frontage invol.ved. Mrs. Eian moved to deny the variance; seconded by Mr. <br />Lancashire and unanunously passed. <br />3, Appellant: Danyry Boy Market, ?!.,.579 Lorain Road: Request to dispIay merchandise within <br />the setback are.ae Re4uest is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, Section 1174.02 <br />which Orohibits the dispIay of inerclaandise witl-dn the setback area. <br />Present; Mr. Bob Romn (otimer of Danny Bvy Market), Paul Cut].er (Attorney) <br />Mr. Roberts read a letter from Mr. Cutler reauesting consider?tion of the variance requeeta <br />He sta,ted that the narketPS on3y exposure is to Lorain Road and that produce must be 5een <br />in order to attract customers. He feels tha.t it would be a real h?.rdship not to have any
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.