My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/06/1999 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1999
>
1999 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
05/06/1999 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:09 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 4:02:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1999
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/6/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r•. ? <br />that the board members receive black and white copies, therefore the applicant would need to <br />show the board members the area he was referring to on the plans. Mr. Taylor indicated a <br />28'foot portion of the existing fence was removed so that a tree could be removed from the <br />backyard. Mr. Kremzar asked if that was the only portion of fence that would be put up. Mr. <br />Taylor indicated Mr. Kremzar was correct. Mr. Carter, an abutting neighbor asked how Mr. <br />Taylor was infringing on his lot. Mr. Gomersall reviewed the requirements of the zoning code. <br />Mr. Carter suggested there was a flaw in the zoning code as there were presently tree's 12'feet <br />high being used as a fence and they are more intrusive than a 6'foot fence. Mr. Gomersall <br />suggested 6'foot trees could not be used as a fence, and asked for clarification from Mr. <br />Rymarczyk. Mr. Rymarczyk believed that the code stipulated hedges 5' to 6'feet high could be <br />in violation if they create a hazardous situation. Mr. Gomersall asked if Mr. Carter had a <br />problem with the proposed fence. Mr. Cater indicated he did not have a problem with the <br />applicant's request, but wanted to use the opportunity to address the board regarding hedges <br />being used as fences. NIr. Gomersall suggested Mr. Carter should contact the building <br />department so that they could take a look at the hedges and address the issue. Mr. Gomersall <br />thanked Mr. Cater for bring the issue to their attention. No further comments were made. <br />J. Maloney motioned to approve Robert Taylor of 6704 Wedgewood Drive his request for <br />variance (1123.12). Which consists of erecting a fence on a corner lot, and that the following <br />variance be granted. A 48'foot variance for intrusion into the front setback of the first house on <br />South Court, (Code allows a 6'ft fence on a corner lot in the rear yard provided that the same is <br />located at the required front building setback of the abutting lot on the side street). Which is in <br />violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 F 2). The motion was seconded by, W. Kremzar and <br />unanimously approved. Varaance Grantecd. <br />15. Dae Woo Automotive; 27881 Lorain Road: <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of expanding the existing showroom, which will <br />include the eYisting canopy and overhang. The following variances are requested: <br />1). Request a special permit to add to a non-conforming building, (1123.11). <br />2). A variance to alter a non-conforming building, (1165.02 ). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1165.02) and (1123.11). <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being <br />requested. Mr. Waldron with Dae Woo motors, Mr. Berkovitz with Herschman Architects, and <br />Mrs. & Mr. Schmitz, concerned neighbors from Decker Road, came forward. Mr. Waldron <br />suggested the canopy and overhang is presently in place. What the applicants would like to do is <br />glass in the area between the existing posts. Mr. Gomersall suggested he reviewed the minutes <br />of the Planning Commission meeting and at that meeting the concern was regarding the intercom <br />system, and the rear lighting. Mr. Waldron indicated that he had turned down the outside <br />speakers and pointed them in another direction. He also suggested that he gave his business card <br />to the residents so they could contact him if they have any further concerns. Mrs. Schmitz <br />reviewed that there was a stipulation by Council that the intercom system was supposed to be <br />eliminated. Mr. Waldron suggested he would remove the intercom system. Mr. Tallon asked if <br />anything had lieeri done to address the lights. Mr. Waldron suggested the lights had not been <br />changed or added to at a11. Mr. Schmitz commented that the lights were left on all night, and that <br />the pole lights were supposed to be turned off at night. Mr. Waldron indicated that the timers on <br />the lights had not been changed from what they were set at by the previous owners. Mr. Schmitz <br />indicated the top lights were supposed to be turned off at 9:00 or 10:00pm, and security lights <br />were to be used. Mr. Waldron again commented that he had not changed the timer and that there <br />10
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.