Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF NORTH 0LNiSTED - BQARD OF ZONING ?.PPEAIS <br />Regular Meeting held at City Hall - August 2, 1972 <br />The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman 1.ti'illiam Tubbs. <br />Present: Messrs. Roberts?Scheef and Tubbs <br />Also present: Mr. Gundy, Building Commissioner <br />Mr. Tubbs announced the case of Roy K. Sidorak, 26500 Sweetbriar Dr. (Case #3 <br />on agenda) was withdrawn. <br />Minutes of June 285 1972 and July 12, 1972 meetings of Board of Zoning Appeals <br />stand approved with no additions or correctionso <br />1. Appellants Denyse Y. Allen, 5242 Devon Drive. Continuance of <br />request for variance 1133.13). Request for variance of 2 ft. <br />to erect fence. Violation of Ord. 62-33 Section 1151.01? limit- <br />ing height of fence to 4 ft. <br />14r. Allen was not present at earlier hearing. Request was denied and he is re- <br />submitting request. Request is for privacy fience to improve property value and <br />appearance. 60% of yard is to be fenced. We have letter from adjoining neigh- <br />bo'rs read by Mr. Tubbs regarding deed restriction limiting fence to 4 ft.Neigh- <br />bors McVean, Terbrack and Voss wrote letter of objection. No hardship is in- <br />volged. Law Director Kitchen days once Board agrees to review ca.se it becomes <br />wide open a gain. Mr. Allen has no problems excEpt minor children cutting a- <br />cross for past several years. He has Japanese garden. Over 20 trees are <br />trimmed and other landscaping work. The three neighbors who objected waited <br />three hours June 28 and are still opposed. The length of the fence cannot <br />be seen except by one neighbor. A hedge parallels the proposed fence. Is <br />there a deed covenant? N'jr. Allen is not too sure.. Activities are all in <br />back yards. The fence would actuall.y be 51V with ground clearance. Mr. <br />Roberts mo ved to deny the reque st because there is no hardship and beca.use of <br />objections of neighbars. iKr. Scheef seconded a nd the motion passed unanimously. <br />2. Appellants Ed ar Van Tilbur , 23405 Stoneybrook Dr. RPquest con- <br />tinued for variance 1133.13 for 10 ft. rear yard variance to en- <br />able him to roof patio. Violation of Ord. 62-33 Section 1163.01 <br />which requires a 50 ft. rear yarda <br />Present: Mr. and Mrs. Van Tilburg and iKr°. and Mrs. Moore <br />Witnesses were administered the oath. Mr. Screef reviewed happening in regard <br />to this case at July 12 meeting. Current certified survey was presented and <br />shows 46.7 ft. rear yard instead of 50 ft. Mro Van Tilburg explained where <br />patio will be located. Residents from east of Van Tilburgs have no objections. <br />IKr. Scheef moved to grant 10 ft. rear yard variance, seconded by Mr. Roberts <br />and passed. <br />t?. Appellant: Jamestown Development Corp. P. 0. I3ox 22055 Cleveland <br />Ohio, to erect garages without doors for Jamestown-Apartments <br />Phase IV. Request is in violation of Zoning Ord. 62-33 Section <br />1213.01 A- In a multiple Residence District one-half (1/2) of <br />the requircd parking spaces shall be provided in a garage.