Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - 5/28/69 - Page 3. <br />Mr, Bu3*er explained that it would be a hardship to enter the garage if it is movecl <br />over more than the required 51 from the side Iine and because of a swale, it ca.n izot <br />be moved fur-thur back. Mr. Thien, his next door neighbor, is aware of his plan to <br />build the garage. Mrs. Eian moved to grant a variance of 61 on distance between garage <br />and adjacen-t dwelling; seconded by Mr. Lancashire and unanimously passedo <br />7. Appellant: S. J o Costello, 23949 Birch Lane. Reo,uest to enclose rear yarcl on a <br />corner Iot with 41 fence. RequeSt is in violation of Ordinance r162-33, <br />Section 115100%, which states that a fence a1ong the street line m?.y not <br />exceed 30" in height. <br />Present: vlr. and Mrsm Costellv <br />'Mx. a.nd Mrs. Costello explained that since the opeMiilg af Birch Lane a.xid Oalt Lane and <br />also the buildi_ng of Birch School, the traffic has i.ncreased 'tremendously. In addition, <br />school children constantly cut through their yard. They feel that a fence wouZd <br />protect their chiZdren. Tt was pointed out that a variance is necessary only sor that <br />Portion of the fence that is along the street Iine. (The house is on the corner of Coe <br />Avenue and Birch .Lane). Their-next door neighbor has no objection. Mr. Lancashire <br />moved to grant variance far a 4y fence a].ang the street line; seconded by Mr. Greene <br />and unanimously passed. <br />8. .Appellant: Harold Sabo' 24776 MitchelT Drige. Request to erect an enc].osed patio <br />. on rear of dweTling. Addition would be 301 from rear Iot 1ine. Request <br />is in violation of Ordinance ,'62-33, Section 1163.01 which requires a <br />501 rear yard. <br />Present: A4r. Sabo <br />Mr. Sabo sta•ted that his family needs more space and that he h-1shes to enclose the patio <br />Which opens off the diningroom sliding door.s. He presented statements from the <br />LTalkowskys and the Parkers stating that they have na objection. His rear yard is presently <br />onZy L,41. Colwnbia La,n.d Co. owns the undevelopec3 land tv the rear. He stated that <br />they are presently putting in new stxeets. The addition would match the house. Mr. <br />Lancashire moved to grant the required variance as per plan$ to allow ll+2t addition patio <br />porch. Mrs. Eian seconded the motion. Unanimously passed. <br />9. Appellant: Thomas Brown, 24174 nincent Drive. Request to erect detached garage <br />151 froi-a adjacent dwelling. Request is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, <br />Sec-tion 1151.04 which require8 a miil3.mum distance of 20' between any <br />detached garage and dwelliiig. <br />Present: 14r. and Mrs. Brown <br />Mr. Brown stated that the entrance to the secoMd half of his garage would be inaccesible <br />if the garage was moved more than the required 5' from the side Iineo There is a swale <br />in the rear :naking it impossible to move f?,irthur back. HiS neighbor doennPt object to <br />the proposed garage; Mr. Greene moved to grant the variance since there wa.s a definite <br />hardship. Mrs. Eian secondecl the motion. IInanimouSTy passed. <br />10. Appellanta John Kulig Enterprises. Request to erect a building on Perraa.nent. <br />Parcel 1237-7-5 Lorain Road (between Clague Road and West 237th Street <br />on the- sou-th side of the-street) with a 201 set'back. Request is i.n <br />vi[alatib " n_. of Ordin.-.nce #62-33, Section 1174.02 which requires a <br />buildi.ng setback i.n a retail business district to be at Ieast 501.