12/07/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. A variance for 2 additional wall signs on a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.27 (A)). J. Burke seconded the motion, which was unanimously denied. ' J. Burke moved to approve Ganley VW of 25580 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of signage and the following variance is granted as amended: 2. A variance for 1 additional ground sign on a lot, as presented and reflected on the plans dated 11/22/06, (code permits 1, applicant shows 2). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.26 (A)). N. Sergi seconded the motion, roll call on motion: J. Maloney, N. Sergi, T. Kelly "yes", J. Burke and M. Diver "no". Variance granted J. Maloney moved to approve Ganley VW of 25580 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of signage and the following variance is granted: 3. A 32 foot variance for ground signs too close to each other as presented and reflected on the plans dated 11/22/06, (exist sign & SG-6), (code requires 2001, applicant shows 168'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.26 (A)). T. Kelly seconded the motion, roll call on the motion; J. Maloney, N. Sergi, T. Kelly "yes", J. Burke and M. Diver "no". Variance granted J. Burke moved to finalize order and findings consistent with their earlier discussion. N. Sergi seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. V. COMMUNICATIONS: • Building Deparhnent report for October 2006 • Letter for reconsideration from the 11-02-06 BZA motion pertaining to Joseph and Vicki Mate of 23281 Marion Road. Mr. Maloney reviewed that the Mates submitted a letter requesting reconsideration of their request which was denied at the November 2, 2006 hearing. The letter states that new plans would be submitted in a continuous effort to be allowed to add onto their home. Mr. O'Malley believed that the applicant was present and may want to be sworn in to address the board. The board will need to motion to grant or deny the request for reconsideration in accordance to their rules of procedures. Mr. Burke advised that the applicant had to burden to come forth to demonstrate why a rehearing should be held. He cautioned the applicant that she need to show new evidence or described or new reasons that could not reasonably have been presented at the original hearings. Furthermore reconsideration would not be granted to just rehear and review the same application/proposal or arguments. Mrs. Mate came forward to be sworn in and address the board. Mrs. Mate submitted a diagram she created with her computer showing the layout of her lot and home however it did not specify dimensions. Mrs. Mate advised that it was their intent to reduce the size of the addition which seemed to be the board's main concern. They would still demolish the detached garage and add a two car garage to their home. The width of the additions could not be altered but she would be willing to remove the front porch. The curb cut and driveway would be reconfigured and they would replace the sidewalks and add landscaping later. There would be two exits from the basement rather than one and suggested that a mixture of brick and siding could be used. Councilman Barker came forward to be sworn in and address the board. Mr. Barker advised that he was present not to endorse or present her request. As Mrs. Mate is willing to work with the board he asks reconsideration be granted in accordance the boards rules. Mr. Burke asked what the setbacks would be and if variances would still be required. Mrs. Mate apologized but did not have exact demotions but the front would be 37 feet, the rear would be a larger variance due to moving the drive and garage. Mrs. 5