10/07/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ? • ,:? 1) A 56 square foot variance to have a shed which will be 10 X 14 feet, of which 10 feet will be r along the back property line and 14 feev--which will be towards his house, (Code permits 84sq ft, applicant shows 140sq ft. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D 1). The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 8. Chiropractic Health- 24767 Lorain Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a pole sign. T1ne following variance is required: 1) A variance to replace an insert in a prohibited pole sign, (Code prohibits this, applicant requests to be allowed to make the changes). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1163.19 A) and (1163.22 A). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Dr. Clyczek, the owner came forward to review his request. Mr. Gomersall questiotied if the applicant understood the pole sign information he read at the beginning of the meeting. Dr. Clyczek indicated he understood. Mr. C'romersall asked if there were any comments from the Board members or the audience. No further comments were made. W. Kremzar motioned to grant Chiropractic Health of 24767 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a pole sign and that the following variance be granted: 1) A variance to replace an insert in a prohibited pole sign, (Code prohibits this, applicant requests to be allowed to make the changes). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1163.19 A) and (1163.22 A). The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 9. Charles Gentile; 29575 Dorchester Dr.: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a shed. The following variance is requested: 1) A variance to erect a shed in side yard, (Code prohibits this). Note: Replacing existing shed on existing pad. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D 1). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Gentile, the owner's son and Mr. Rieke, a concerned neighbor came forward. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the shed was just being replaced. Mr. Gentile comments "yes". Mr. Gomersall asked for Mr. Rieke's comments. 1VIr. Rieke suggested he would rather not have the shed there for three reasons: 1. The shed will be so close to the lot line. 2. We just put an addition on our home and the shed would be in our line of view. 3. The shed would affect the value of his home. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the applicant could move the sheds position. Mr. Gentile suggested that there were trees that had roots above ground that would have to be removed, which would be very costly and there is a slope in the yard as well as a patio. NIr. Gentile suggested that Mr. Rieke's addition would be past his shed. NIr. Rieke indicated that the shed was not practical. Mr. Gomersall suggested that the addition was not relevant to the request. Mr. Gentile suggested that he just wanted to put a shed on the existing slab. Mr. Gomersall suggested he could not agree to have the shed in the proposed location. Mr. Gentile indicated that he would move the shed right behind the house and would not need a variance, but it would put it right in the line of sight of Mr. Rieke's addition. Mr. Rieke indicated that, he would prefer the shed not be in the new location Mr. Gentile indicated earlier. Mr. Gentile questioned how big of a shed would he be allowed if he moved the shed behind the house. Mr. Conway indicated that he would be allowed a maximum of 6