02/02/1972 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - February 2, 1972 - Page 3 The witnesses were sworn in. Mre Richard Puzzietiello stated the reason for this request was because there are 400 ft: lots but actual useable land was only 134 ft. With a 50 ft. setback on these lots, it would only give approximately 20 ft. from the rear of the house to the creek.. Photographs illustrating the situation were shown. Mr. Scheef suggested that the side yard differences should open up.if one lot was eliminated. ?:v.`.r. Roberts agreed this should be considered. Mr'. Puzzietiello stated that these lots were already sold contingent upon this variance. Mr. Scheef stated that it was a hazard to have a drainage ditch that close to the back land. Mr. Scheef then made a motion that a 15 ft. varianc e be granted and allow a 35 ft. s etback .. The motion was pas sed with Mr. Roberts voting no. 6. Appellant: Bauer Development - Request for 15' variance (1133.13) on the front setback of S/L 203, 27406 Nantucket Drive, North Glmsted, Request is in violation of Ord. #62-33, Section 1159.01 which requires a 50' front yard. 7. Appellant: Bauer Development - Request for 15' variance (1133.13) on the front setback of S/L 204, 27416 Nantucket Drive, North Olmsted, Request is in violation of Ord. #62-33, Section 1159.01 which requires a 50' front yard. 8. Appellant: Bauer Development - Request for 15' variance (1133.13) on the front setback of S/L 204, 27401 Nantiacket Drive, North Olmsted. Request is in violation of Ord. #62-33, Section 1159.01, which requires a 50! front yard. Pres ent; Mr. Paul Saylor, Mr. Robert Oring Witnesses were sworn in. Mr. Saylor stated that this would be the permanent end of the street nowa These lots adjoin the proposed I-80. If this were not granted it would make it difficult to have any rear yards . Other houses on the street already had the 15' variance. Mr. Oring stated he was repre- s enting the Olmsted Woods Homeowners Assoc. He wanted to verify that owners within 200 ft. received notices because, in his opinion, this had not been done. It was determined that all property owners had not been notified and Mr. Tubbs said that on that. basis this would be def°erred until the next m eeting . in the meantime, the Board could also look at the property in question. 9. Appellant: Alfred G. Baker, 23952 Amesbury Dr.- Request for 21' rear yard variance (1133.13) to build an addition to existing dwelling: Request is in violation of Ord. #62-33, Section 1163.01 which requires'50' rear yard. Present: Mr. Alfred Baker, Mr. Robert O'Brien, Mrs. Robert O'Brien, Mrs. Lunt, Mr. Blain, Mrs. Blanc