09/03/1969 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BoA.PD oF Zc3NING APPEALS (9/3/69) - Page 2 % any produce. outside. Mr. Romp i`urthur stated that it would be p?ysically a.m.possible to displag a.ll of -the produce inside the building. Mr. Greene rerai.nded the appellant that a 151 setback variance had been gran•ted previously and that he feZt that one reason that variance had been graalted was so that produce could a.11 be inside the building. Mr. Romp stated that this had never been his intention and that there must -have been some misunder- standing in that regard. Mr. Roberts asked abo-at the location of temporaxy advertisi.ng ?signs in front of the narket. Mrm Gundy stated that this was nermissable. Mr. Lancashire statecl that he felt this was a unique type of business and that the displays were attrsctive. Mrse Eia.n st«ted that she a1.so felt it was a unique business and that the itema on display were sma.ll - not Iike cars - and suggested a co-ripromise. It taa.s suggested that nothing be displa.yed in front of the Iarge tree approxi.mately 101 off the sidewalk;' It was felt that the hardship was is that tlhis is_a unique type of business an.d ueople should be able to vieri the produce. Mre Lancashire moved to gra.nt a va.riance to display produce -or.Iy in the spa.ce between the building a,na a line between the south edge of sign and the big tree. Mr. Fian seconded the motion. The motion-passed by a 3 to 1 vote wr1.th Mr. Greene voting no. 4. Appellants North Olznsted Lumber__Co_e, 27375 Lorain Roaa. Request .for special permit to add to non-conforr-liilg bnaiTaS.ng. Permit mequested as per Ordinmice #,62-33, Section 123I.02 and 1_133.120 Presents Mre Zahner Mr. Zahner sta.ted that they-desire to expald their busi-nessa The present building is non confor,-sing and the pronosed addition would confoMn in aIl ways but setback; bdc7ition would be 201 from front property Iine at closest point. It was pointed out tha.t tais would square off the buildi.ng and that they need the expansion to be competitive. The case involving Jolin Baratko and the Elzona Red Carpet Inn 1-ieard on 5/2$/69 was cited as being.similar. Since the cases were not alyke in every respect9 Mr. Greene moved to continue the case to -the next a.ssi? ed :neeting and to-reauest the presence of the Law Director for cla.rification of 1231.02 lB). Mrs. Eian seconded the motion. IIrianimously passed. 5. Appellante Charles V. Lat5a9 23267 Marion Road. Request to build an attached garage onto existing house. Request is in violation of Ordinance #62-332 Section I161.01 -v,Thich requires that a dwelling with an attached garage be so situated . that the sun of the two sides shall not be less tnan 151s Present: Mr. and Mrs. Latsa, Charles Latsa., Jr., Building Contractor, Mrsb Iiendershot an.d , her son Mr. Hendershot' I+Irs. Van Aschen Charles Latsa, Jr. spoke for his parents and explained that due to their advanced age, they desire an attached garage. The broposed garage would be 21 frorn the side lot li.ne. It would be o#° brick construction and tied in with new famiZy-room addition presently uizder construction. There is presently a.n oId dilapidatecl detached garage at rear of lot that vrou? d be torn down. They feel the appearance of the property would be. up-gxaded. A2rs. Hendershot stated tha.t she feels that the garage would be too cTose to her house. Her ;son st,ated that she does not want to look out hex kitchen wmdow at a brick wal]_. Discussion was held .r.egarc3ing raoving -the proposed garage baek 3-1 to eliainate closeness to the kitchen window in question. Mrs. Hendexshot stated tha.t she would be agreeable ta this. Mr. Greene moved to grant a-.31 sideliaze variance providing garage fron't starts 611-i:n front of present door ja?.nb and nroviding that distance to ac3jacent llorie is 121 from pronosed structure. Mr. L;incashire seconded the motion. Uni.nimously passede - 6; Appellant: Charles R. Lehm_arm., 24$02 Faonto existing house. Rea,uest 1161.0I which rPquires tha.t a situ?.ted that the suzn of tne wn Drive. Request to builcl an attached gaxage is` in violation of Ordinance #62-33, Section dwel? ing -w?.th an attached garage be so two sideS shall not be less tha,n 151. Presc-nto Mre Lehmann Mr. Lehma.nn atated that he prefers an attached garage and that because of a drainage ditch