Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Zoning Appeals - August 2, 1972 Page 3 <br />7. Appellanta Del Carpenter, 3?51 Clague Rd. Reouest for variance <br />for addition to nondconforming dwelling (non-conforming as to <br />distance between house and garage). Violation of Ord. 62-33 <br />Section 1231.02. <br />Present: A'!r. and r2rs. Carpenter and Mr. and Mrs. Kidd. Witnesses were ad- <br />ministered th- oath. appellants wish to add family room now and later add <br />bedrooms, they need expansion for their family of 5 children. Board members <br />exzmined site p12iz. Mr. and Nlrs. Kidd, nPighbors from next door znd other <br />neighbors not present have no objection. Builaing will be 15 or 20 fte from <br />lot line. Mr. Scheef suggests proper joists for later addition. Mra Roberts <br />moved to grant the special permit to add to non-conform ing building. Mr. <br />Scheef seconded and the motion passed. <br />8. Appellant: Thomas Grant - Grant's Last Stand, 26368 Lorain Rd. <br />Request for variance 1133.13 . Requesting oversize pole sign <br />(18 ft. variance). Violation of Ord. 62-33 Section 1225.02 <br />(E-4) tiThe maximum sizr, one face of 2ny pole sign shall not <br />ex-ceed 50 sq,. fto'a <br />Present: Mr. Grant, representing tY_- company and neighbors; Julia Brown & Coletta <br />Klausman, Evergreen Dr. <br />Witnesses were administered the oath. Mr. Grant stated it will be the original <br />sign excspt for addition at bottom. $9800 was original cost of sign. 44 sq.fte <br />is present total sign area. With addition total sign area will be 68 sq. ft. <br />Plzns are to relocate sign 5 ft. to 7 ft back from where it is presently locat- <br />ed. It will be 9 ft. off ground. Ten existing Arby Restaurants are being taken <br />over in similar rranner. There will be lawsuit if new company retains Arby sign. <br />Sign is made of plastic a nd steel with neo n topo There is pending application <br />for 3.2 liquor license and increase of seating capacity. Mro Roberts asked <br />if there will be any more signs. Answer, yes, one on top. Mro Roberts stated <br />the Safety Director should direct the relocation of the sign in rclation to <br />traffic at interscction. Mrs. Brown voiced objection in regard to traffic. <br />Mr. Scheef asked if there is record of how many acciderrts at that corner. Mr. <br />Gund,y stated this area is uell lighted and there is not a preponderance of ac- <br />cidents. Mr. Scheef said where a sign that big is on that size building another <br />sign will never be needed. Corner will be helped by moving sign bzck. Mr. <br />Scheef moved request to increase sizc of present sign by 4 ft. x 6 ft to lower <br />section and sign be reloczted ?Lt sente$tline of the building and not closer than <br />5 ft. from side a nd 9 ft. off the ground; further stipulating this is total sign <br />a1lou2nce., be granted. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion adding that another sign <br />will be allowed only if present sign is removed or reduced and that the exact <br />location is subject to the direction of Safety Director. Motion p2ssed. <br />9. 'Appellant: Wm. Carrig, 4056 Fielding Dr. Rehearing Request for <br />variance (11 . . hange in size of tool shed requested at <br />July 12 meeting. Request for special permit to erect tool shed <br />in violation of Ord. 62-33 Section 1133•09. <br />Mr. and iqrs. Carrig asked for continuation because there are 3 mPmbers of the <br />Board present. Mr. Carrig thinks vote would be irare fair if more rrembers of <br />the Board were present. They were in and were denied July 12. Now the siZe <br />is changed. Case continued until next month. <br />0