05/07/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

115-- -- `1?w , been before the board before, and inquired as to what changes had taken place concerning the parldng spaces, and what about the other issues. Mr. Rymarczyk stated they have brought the building up to code to comply with the larger occupancy. Mr. Wymau stated the building itself has been approved, we just need to address the question about the parking spaces required. Since the temporary permit was granted we have had 20 meetings or more and have never used more then 14 parking places. . T. Koberna Moved to grant Christian Chapel, 4757 Clague Road a variance to have twenty- four (24) parking spaces less than required by code. (Code requires 1 per each 2.5 seats) Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1161.05 (G). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. ' 6. Cynthia Schmidt, 6791 C,ypress Road: Request for variance (1123.12). " Mrs. Schmidt is appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals to place a fence in an area ruled by the Bu.ilding Commissioner to be a front yard. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (I). Note: The fence would extend 38 feet into the front yard and 47 feet across; a 21 foot above ground swimmuig pool would be placed inside the fence. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Cynthia Schmidt; Rob Kopasek; Dorothy Reed; Mary Donelan; Mr. & Mrs. Pelka, and Carol Keller. Ms. Schmidt presented her proposal, I would like to remove the fence and move it to go in front of the garage, because the other side of the yard is filled with trees and is only 37'ft. from the house and 10'ft. away from the property line. Mr. Pelka a concerned neighbor who lives right across the street from Ms. Schmidt stated we are against a fence and pool, when I sit on my porch all I would see is that fence and if you give her permission to have a fence in the front yard the other neighbors will want one. Mr. Gomersall stated you must not have heard my opening comment, each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itsel£ Mrs. Reed who abuts Ms. Shmidt's properiy and the one who submitted a letter, stated I'm against the fence. First it is against the ordinance, second it will bring my property value down, and third the fence will obstructed my view when I come out of my drive as well as anyone coming around the corner. This should be done somewhere else on the property. Mrs. Keller from Cypress street stated it will not fit into the architectural look of the area and would be a hazard to the kids who play around that corner. Mrs. Donelan a concerned neighbor stated the property value would go down for everyone in the area and I'm against it. Mr. Gomersall stated the property adjoining Ms. Shmidt's would be affected, and it would abstract the sidewalk which kids use, and the lot is just not conducive to a fence. Mr. Molony stated he could not see granting a variance for a fence at this time. J. Molony Moved to grant Cynthia Schmidt, 6791 Cypress Road a Request for variance (1123.12). Mrs. Schmidt is appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals to place a fence in an area ruled by the Building Conunissioner to be a front yard. V'iolation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (I). Note: The fence would extend 38 feet into the front yard and 47 feet across; a 21 foot above ground swimining pool would be placed inside the fence. The motion was seconded by T. Kobema and unanimously denied. Variance Denied.