Laserfiche WebLink
Q-11ttV .af N.art4 (191rtsteb, 04to <br />CZ'?`Y OF NORTH OLMSThI BOA3D OF ZONING AP'L+.ALS <br />RF,GU.GAR MTETING H&D AT TM CITY HAi,.L AUGe 6, 1963 <br />Meeti.ng was called to oreter at 1:30 P-ITi. <br />Members present: Messrsa Greene, Klinate, Morgan and Smith <br />Members a.bsent: Mr. Byers <br />A1so present; Mr. Ernest J. Gundy, Buildihg Com.?nis5ioner <br />Others, as listed under A;,Dpellants <br />Minutes of July 16., 1963 Meeting were repd and approved0 <br />1s Appellante N.cer Construction Corp., 21380 Lorain Rd., N. Qlmsteel, pa <br />Represented bij Mr. R. R. Mi11er <br />Neighbors presentt <br />Gerald P. Baker, 23465 Greenwoed Lane (Ref, S/L #64) <br />Al.bert F. Germ, 23406 Alexander RdQ ° . <br />P,Lro Zirzow, 23425 Stoiieybrook <br />Lloyd R. Dobbii.s, 23242 A1.exander Rd, (Ref. S/L #56) <br />Mar-tin J. Sarnmon, 23231 Stoneybrock (Ref. 64. &_ 56) <br />Reference: Back Yard 81 variance on S/L 64 - 23405 Stoneybrook <br />Back Yard 81 variance on S/L 56 - 23251 Stor?eybrcok <br />Violation of Zoning Ord. 62-33, Cha.p-L-er 11634 <br />(Seei4a.nuted of July 16, 1963' I?em 3). <br />Sublet iNo, 64. ApPellant explained he had prospe;ctive buyers who wanted a larger <br />home uilt on this 1ot. Ir_?.sriucli as ba.ck lot was quite deep, appe:Llant felt th-cre <br />would be no objectior_ to shortening the back yard of this particular kete;o :?.= '.. <br />Neighbor Baker voiceel no objecti-on except that he felt the code should not be <br />violated. Qther neighbors present felt strongly tha.t no variance should be gran-ted. <br />Thef felt that inasmuch as sin-il.ler hom.es had been built on ].ots of -Ljhe sarne size as <br />sublots 64 and 56, builc?er shovld sE1ect the propen come for i,he lat. <br />N1rR HI.inite movea that the vs riance be grantedq Trere -gas no second te the moticr_. <br />Because of the lack of a seccnd to the motion, variance was denied on S/L No. 64. <br />Sublot rlo. 56. Appellants request for variance w3s the same as a.botre. Neighbors, <br />as above, voiceel the same objections. There was ne motion for granting or der.ying <br />reques-t. Lecause of 1ac•k of action by the Boaret, variance request was denied on <br />s/L No. 56.