My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/04/2004 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2004
>
2004 Board of Zoning Appeals
>
11/04/2004 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:41 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 8:45:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2004
Board Name
Board of Zoning Appeals
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/4/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
of the sign is to be no larger than 1 foot 18 inches high by 2 feet 6 inches wide, T. Kelly <br />seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. <br />2. Tonv Zakrzewski, 6085 Burns Road, WRD 3 <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of adding a carport to residence. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A 5' variance for a minimum side setback of a residence, (code requires 5', applicant <br />shows 0), section (1135.07A). <br />2. A variance for an accessory structure on a parcel with no residence (code does not <br />permit). A section of the carport crosses the property line, section 1135.02. <br />3. A 14' variance for a minimum total side setback requirement, (code requires 20', <br />applicant shows 6'), section (1135.07A). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, sections 1135.02, 1135.07A. <br />Acting Chairman Kremzar called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. & <br />Mrs. Zakrzewski the owners came forward to be sworn in and review the request. The <br />applicants would like to have a canopy at the door for shelter from the weather. The Building <br />Commissioner had no objections to the request but would like the board to indicate that if the <br />home is sold that the two parcels be combined. Mr. O'Malley advised that there is a <br />solution; if the lots are consolidated variances are not required. As far as Mr. Conway's <br />suggestion he is not sure that the condition would be enforceable. The applicants stated that <br />they could not afford to consolidate the two parcels at this time. <br />M. Diver moved to grant Tony Zakrzewski of 6085 Burns Road his request for variance <br />(1123.12), which consists of adding a carport to residence and that following variances <br />are granted: 1. A 5' variance for a minimum side setback of a residence, (code requires 5', <br />applicant shows 0), section (1135.07A). <br />2. A variance for an accessory structure on a parcel with no residence (code does not <br />permit). A section of the carport crosses the property line, section 1135.02. <br />3. A 14' variance for a minimum total side setback requirement, (code requires 201, <br />applicant shows 6'), section (1135.07A). <br />With the inclusion that prior to both parcels of land transferring title, both parcels <br />must be consolidated. into one. W. Kremzar seconded the motion which was <br />unanimously approved. <br />3. Turf Suecialists, 31407 Bradlev Road, WRD 3 <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new storage building and drive. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 8' 0 variance for sideyard setback of drive, (code requires 10' 0, applicant shows 2' 0), <br />section (1145.07), table. <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, section 1145.07. Acting Chairman Kremzar called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. <br />McFarland, the owner came forward to be sworn in and review the request. He would like <br />to have a storage area for equipment. He needs a variance to run the driveway back to the <br />new storage shed. He has had a problem with theft and would like to secure his equipment. <br />Mr. O'Malley reviewed the discussion the applicant had with the Planning Commission for <br />- board members. The Building Commissioner had no objections to the request. <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.