12/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

everyone's view and vote by the majority of the parties involved. Mrs. Crowley commented that the letters should not be taken into consideration because they either have woods or a fence to buffer them. Mr. Beitel suggested that they never asked the neighbors to write letters, they did so on their own. He sugaested that he understood the pool would be within the Crowley's view. Mr. Beitel commented that his privacy ended on his property line as did the Crowley's. If the Crowley's do not want to hear noise they can stay in their home, as they do any other day. Mr. Gomersall remarked that comments like that were not called for. Mr. Beitel reviewed that the reason the neighbors wrote letters were because they were sent notices. Mrs. Beitel suggested that noise should not be an issue, as there would be the same amount of noise made by the children playing in the backyard as there would-be with a pool. NIr. Crowley sugjested that they were only present to discuss the size of the pool. At this point the parties involved started arguing and Mr. Gomersall had to call the meeting back to order. No fiirther comments were made. 7. Maloney motioned to grant Mr. & Mrs. Beiltel, of 24207 Palm Drive, their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a swimming pool and that the following variance be granted A 198square foot (6.4%) variance for swimming pool eYCeeding 20% rear yard coverage, (code, pernuts 620sqft, applicant shows 818sqft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D2). He would like to add the followuig condition to the variance; the access to and from the pool be made by an "A" frame ladder conveniently located and that no other deck or other partnerships be attached to the pool. The motion was seconded by T. Koberna and Unanimously approved. Variance Grlnted. 5. Flooring America: 27178 Lorain Rd. Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of additional wall signs. The following variance is requested: A variance to add 2 additional wall signs, (code pernuts 1, applicant shows 3). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1163.12 A). Note: Existing south elevation wall sian is 26'x2'3 tliat equals 58.5 square feet. The combined total frontage of the building is 133-feet 6 inches (conier lot). The maximuin allowable building signage is 133.5 square feet for this building. The total of the 3 wall signs proposed rvould be 130.5 square feet, which is 3-square feet under the maYimum building signage allowable. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variance requested. Ms. Lengle, with Vital Signs, Mr. Scher representing an owner of the abutting property and Mr. Lockner CO-Trustee of the abutting property came forward to review the request. Mr. Gomersall corrunented that the applicants want to put an additional sign on both sides of the building. He reviewed that the board received a letter with a site plan attached and he could not understand the site plan as it did not indicate were Lorain or pover Road is located. Mr. Scher asked Mr. Rymarczyk to explain the site plan that he had submitted. Mr. Rymarczyk pointed out to the Chairman were Lorain and Dover road was located on the site plan. Mr. Gomersall questioned what sat on the lot. 1VIr. Lockner commented that there was a vacant building on the back part of the lot. Mr. Gomersall questioned what Mr. Lockner's concerns were. Mr. Lockner indicated that he was concerned that the sign would encroach further onto his property. The existing building currently sits on the property line. If the sign is allowed, would there be further encroachment onto his property, then what there is presently. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that according to the applicant's submittal the building is 6-inches from the property line. Mr. Lockner suggested that only the back of the building was 6-inches from the property line, but the front of the building is on the property line. He suggested his property had pins in place. Mr. Koberna questioned if the abutting neighbors had a site surveyor check the site. Mr. Lockner indicated that the owners had a sit surveyor do the measurements. Mr. Gareau reviewed that the board had to deal with the issue of whether or not a sign should be on the wall or not. If there is a legal issue as M1 6