Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The oath was administered <br />to George and Maria Busony, the applicants, and George Corell, landowner, who came forward to <br />review the request. Mr. Maloney questioned if they could explain what they were proposing to the <br />board. Mrs. Busony indicated that she was not sure that they needed variance number 2, because on the <br />site plan they show 11 ft. on one side and 6 on the other, so there is 17 ft. combined for both sides of the <br />house. The house can be moved, if there is a problem. It doesn't matter to her where exactly it sits on <br />the lot. N1r. Koberna questioned what she said on the sides of the house. Mrs. Busony commented that <br />on the second variance for the four ft., she wasn't sure she needed that, she was told she needed fifteen <br />total with the attached garage and she has 17 on there. Mr. Koberna indicated that the plans depicted 6' <br />and 9', so she only has 15 total ft. Mrs. Busony replied they made the garage bigger, it is going to be 22' <br />now. Mr. Conway indicated that the variance relates to the other side where she is 6 ft. off the property <br />line. Mrs. Busony commented that they can move the house, she doesn't know where it needs to be <br />sitting to meet the City's requirements. Mr. Conway suggested that was one of the purposes of having <br />the survey done and locate the house where you wanted it, so we wouldn't have issues like this arise. ' We <br />base the variance on where you requested to place the structure, now you are saying you are willing to <br />move the structure. Mrs. Busony replied that she is willing to move it if it is not on the map right. Mr. <br />Conway indicated that if these dimensions are correct, we can move the structure 4 ft. to the other side <br />and then we would have 15 ft. between both dwellings on abutting lots. There would be a 10 ft. side yard <br />on the south side of the property and a 5 ft. side yard on the north side, which would eiiminate the one <br />variance. Mr. Maloney questioned if this was all right with Mrs. Busony. Mrs. Busony replied that this <br />would be fine. Mr. Conway questioned if she was positive that this structure was not going to be any <br />larger than this because we're right there. Mrs. Busony replied yes, her builder was present and it will not <br />be bigger. IVIc-. Ivlaloney called for a motion. Mr. Conway indicated that this motion should be subject to <br />these parcels being combined at the Planning Commission meeting. <br />J. Maloney motioned to arant Maria Busony of permanent parcel #232-10-010 & 232-10-009 her request <br />for variance (1123.12). Which consists of constructing, a new home and the following variance be <br />granted: <br />1) A 21 ft. variance for front setback (code z-equires 50 ft., applicant shows 29 ft.), section (1135.06 A). <br />Variance number (2) is withdrawn, as they will move the house four feet to the north according to the lot <br />plans. The approval of this is subject to both parcels being combined at the Planning Commission <br />ineeting. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.06 A, and 1135.07 A. The motion was <br />seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approve. Variance Granted 6/7/01. <br />7. Tops MaY•kets; 26666 Brookuark Rd. Ext. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of ground signs. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />7. An 8 foot variance for excessive height for ground sign #V, (code permits 12 ft. applicant shows 20 <br />ft). <br />8. A 178.5 square foot variance for excessive square footaae for ground sign #V, (code permits 50 sq. <br />ft. applicant shows 228,5 sq. ft.). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, 1163.26-C. <br />NOTE: l. See new position of ground sign #V on revised site plan dated May 30, 2001. <br />2. Top's was granted variance requests 1 through 6 at the May 3, 2001 Board of Zoning Appeals <br />meeting. <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The oath was administered <br />to Jeff Olson, Real Estate Director for Tops, and John Crook, architect, who came forward to review the <br />request. Mr. Maloney indicated that they were here at the last meeting and they are here tonight to <br />4