Laserfiche WebLink
Board members felt the property could yield a reasonable return without a variance. Requests #2 <br />and #3 were substantial and already ruled upon. Allowing a 6-foot high solid fence would alter the <br />character of the neighborhood. The owners purchased the home with knowledge of zoning <br />restrictions. Although placement of fence is a hardship the height and percentage open is not. Mr. <br />Masola said he would be willing to move the fence but not willing to cut down the size or change the <br />0% open. <br />J. Maloney moved to approve Dale & Pamela Masola of 27649 Marquette Blvd their request <br />for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new fence installed without a permit and the <br />following variance is granted as amended: <br />1. A 17 foot variance for a fence located in neighbors 50' setback on a corner lot, (code <br />requires 501, applicant shows 33'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.02 (fl)). <br />M. Diver seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />3. Shailesh & Uma Shah; 23551 Westchester Dr. (WRD # 2) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of the addition of a family room. The <br />following variance is requested: <br />1. A 6 foot variance for a residence to close to the rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant <br />shows 44'. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.08). <br />Mr. & Mrs. Shah, Ms. Shah daughter and Mr. Bain the contractor each came forward to be sworn in <br />and address the request. Mr. Shah advised that they would like to add a family room as their home <br />does not have one now. They would like to replace the existing patio which is in poor condition <br />with a 16' x 18' family room. Their home is a 2 bedroom home and they have 2 daughters the <br />family room would give them an area for their daughters and increase the value of their home. They <br />do not believe that the 6-foot needed is not substantial. Mrs. Diver felt that the addition would be an <br />improvement to the neighborhood and the variance requested was not substantial. <br />M. Diver moved to approve Shailesh & Uma Shah of 23551 Westchester Dr. their request for <br />variance (1123.12), which consists of the addition of a family room and the following variance <br />is granted: 1. A 6 foot variance for a residence to close to the rear property line, (code <br />requires 501, applicant shows 44'. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.08). N. <br />Sergi seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />IV. NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: <br />1. Ganley VW; 25580 Lorain Road: (WRD # 1) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of signage and the following variances are <br />requested: <br />1. A variance for 2 additional wall signs on a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3), section <br />(1163.27 (A)). <br />2. A variance for 1 additional ground sign on a lot, (code permits 1, applicant shows 2), section <br />(1163.26 (A)). <br />3. A 32 foot variance for ground signs too close to each other (exist sign & SG-6), (code requires <br />200', applicant shows 168'), section (1163.26 (A)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.27 (A)) and (1163.26 (A)). Note: #1 includes <br />existing ground sign, new proposed directional sign (SG-6). #2. V W Logo reduced to 40" diameter <br />and the Ganley wall sign (SG-2) reduced to 2'x 11' 2" per revised drawings received 11/22/06. #3. <br />BZA tabled this request on 09/07/06 and 10/05/06.