Laserfiche WebLink
.. czTY oF NoxTx 0124sTED - BoARD oF zoNnTG APPEALs ? <br />Regular Meetiiag lielc1 at City Iiatl -----°- April. 2p 1969 <br />The iaeeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chair.?an John I3oberts. <br />Those Present: Mrs. Eian, Mssrse Greeiie, 13sberts, Forcellini, Lancas'tiire <br />Also Present: Mr. Gumdy, Building Commi.ssioner <br />T}1@ :41121Ut@S of the 3/5/69 and. 3/20/69 meetings were approved as written. <br />It wtLs anAouficed tha_t the Paradise Pontiac request wa.s being continued -to the next <br />regular meeting. <br />1. Appellant, Jaseph .McFarland, Continuation of request to build an additiom onto <br />house located at 4628 Canterbury Road. A.ddition wouZd be 5e 3" from <br />detached garageo Request is in violation OrdinanaMCe #62-33, Section <br />I151.04 which requires a miuimum distanee of 201 between dwelTing and <br />detached garage, <br />Present: Mr. MeFarland <br />Mr. McFarland presented revised plams for 11ome addition. The addition is naw smaller <br />a.nd would be 20' from Mr. Has"senrueckt sgarage next dvorm Mro McFarla,nd stated that he <br />=aas conversed with Mr. Hassenrueck aMd that he has no objectian.now.that it is 20, from <br />his garage. He emphasized. agai:n his fzimilys s._ need fmr mox°e space. He has seven children. <br />Mr. C=reene asked if possibilit? of--attdching garage to. house. had--been considered. Mr. <br />runay stated that -the garage wasn't built to atta.ched garage specifications,and that it <br />would.be difficult to make it complg with the code. P4ro roreeliini _ovea. to approve a <br />variance mf 141 9" between house and garage provided firewa7.I is iilstalled in garage; <br />seconded by Mr. Greene and unanimously passect. <br />2. Appe7.lant: Detroit Auto Wash, 25715 Lorain Rvad. Continuation of request for <br />variance to erect an additiona.I pole sign. Reauest is in violation of <br />Ordinance 7#62-33, section 1225.02 wh'ich perini,ts only one pole sign. <br />Fresente Representatives of Wa.gner Sign and Gulf Oil Co., Mr. Mues, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Cooney <br />Plans were presented fo.r. a revised sign consolirlatiizg a11..desired data onto one sign. <br />However since neighbors com>>lained that previous complaints iaad nat been taken eare of <br />ara that mud and-water were still a probleg, Mr. Greene m.oved to continue the case until <br />suggestions nave been -aetm Mrs. Eian second.ed the ramtion. IInani.mously passed. <br />3. AppeZla.nt: Joseph Simmons, 29603 Lvraa.n Roacl. Continuation of request to dispzay <br />tra,ilers withi-ii the setbac?L a.rea. Violatioa ordina_.n.ce #62-33, Section <br />1174.02 which prohibits the d.isplay of merchanclise withiM the setback areao <br />Presente Mr. Simmons? Attorney Fmi1 91ad, Representa.tives of Bretton Ridge 11omeowners Assn. <br />Mr. Vlad presented nhotographs showing various views of Illir. Simmon's property. It was <br />pointed out that a bus shelter, two brick walls at entrance of Christna.n Drive and a <br />large sign advertising Bretton Ridge alI blocked the view of the property. It was <br />pointec3 out that no trailers would be displayed at a11 fro?. December until approxvnately <br />MarcYa, Mr. SLmons would be agreeable to displaying just two trailers -one on either <br />side of the ceater driveway. Discussion was held regarding removal of Bretton R3.dge sign <br />and possible :noving of bus sheltera Representatives of the Bretton Ridge Ho:neowners <br />Aasociativn statecl that they liad t.ried to net the sign removed but taere told that so 1ong <br />as there were neW models being shown that th.is cou7d not be doMe. They cited the safety <br />and visibility factor involved in coning out onto Lorain Road. When asked about the <br />tral'fic problem in the area, Mr. Gundy sta,ted that there has been no problem so? far and