07/02/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c •,_,?-? place tlus six foot fence along the interior border of the four foot fence. Mrs. Ellis clarified the new 6 foot fence would be erected as close as possible to the existing fence so that there will not be a mainteuauce problem. Mr. Frisby stated he did not object to the 6 foot fence but would like to see the four foot fence taken down. He noted as a neighboring properiy owner tlie view of a board on board fence directly belund the four foot chain link fence would look terrible. Mr. Gomersall questioned if Mrs. Ellis would be willing to remove the four foot fence. Mrs. Ellis did not want to endure the cost of removing the four foot fence. Mr. Frisby advised another abutting resident constructed a board on board fence for the same reason Mrs. Ellis has made this request, and should have removed the chain link fence upon constructing of the board on board fence. He noted, if that is a violation of city ordinances, the city should force that resident to remove the chain link fence. Mr. Ickes stated he also had concerns about Mrs. Ellis' request and wondered if the board on board fence could at least be erected on the outside of the existing fence so that the abutting neighbors did not have to face it. If there is room on her property, Mrs. Ellis agreed to place the new fence on the outside of the existing fence. Mr. Maloney stated it appears this property owner is attempting to alleviate a problem and did not want to force the owner to withstand additional expense. Mr. Koberna disagreed, as there would be a problem maiutaining the area between the two fences. He noted the plans presented did not provide enough details and questioned the location of the property line. Mrs. Ellis was unsure the existiug chain link fence was part of her property, since she is a new homeowner. Mr. Cpomersall was not williug to allow this fence unless it is erected on the outside of the existing chain link fence so that the abutting neighbors do not see tlie chain link fence. He cautioned the location of the property line will have to be identified prior to installing the fence. The members discussed a motion. R. Gomersall moved to grant Betty L. Ellis, 6892 Stearns Road, a variance (1123.12) to erect a 6 foot stockade fence along the north side of property by fastening it to an existing four 4 foot high fence conditional upon the stockade fence being constructed on the outside of the chain link fence. V'iolation of Ord. 90-125, Sectiou 1135.02 (f-1). Iu the framing of the motion Law Director Gareau clarified if the applicant has to build the fence on someone else's property, in effect the applicant does not have the variance. The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and unanimously approved. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk advised Mrs. Ellis a suivey would have to be completed, to make a determination of the properly line location, prior to getting permission to construct the fence. 4) Jack Fiiiliu (State Fann) 23889 Lorain Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following signage variances: 1) A 7 foot setback variance from the west property line. The code requires 25 feet whereas this sign is only 18 feet; 2) Permission to alter a non-conforming sign (after the fact) which is in the 35 foot safety triangle; 3) to add a business name to a free standiug sign; and 4) A variance to modify a non-conforming sign, unless the entire sign shall be brought into compliance. Note: (1) This is an addition to a non-conforming sign which was installed without a permit; and (2) Due to the fact there is no business building signage presently, they may borrow the 14.4 square feet needed to bring the ground sign square footage into compliance, but A letter from the owner of the property would be required acknowledging the fact that only 9.6 square feet would be remaiuing for the future building signage. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s) 1163.12 (b), 1163.12 (h), and 1163.19. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr./Mrs. Finlin (agplicants). There were no questions on the submittal. J. Maloney moved to grant Jack Finlin (State Farm) 23889 Lorain Road the following signage variances (1123.12): 1) A 7 foot setback variance from the west property line. The code requires 25 feet whereas this sign is- only 18 feet; 2) Permission to alter a non-conforming sign (after the fact) which is in the 35 foot safety triangle; 3) to add a business name to a free standing sign; and 4) A