Laserfiche WebLink
CITI' OF NORTI-I OLMSTED ° BOARD OF ZONING AFPEAL5 <br />REGULAR MEETIIvG HEi,D AT TH.E CITY HA]LL - APRIL 7, 1965 <br />Meeting callEd to order at 7; 35 p.m. <br />Members presenta Niessrse Klinite, Greeize, Schmi.tt, 13yexs, Mrs. Esan <br />fllso present: Councilmen I=oltz and IIodgins <br />Others as listed under appellants <br />Riinutes of the regular meeting March 9 and the special meeting on March 16 <br />were accepted as submitted. <br />lm Appell.ant: Vcfel & KilUane B1dg. Co., 6916 Anthony Laiie, parma <br />Heibhts, Ohioo <br />Ref: Request for variance (1133013) to build a house on permanent <br />parcel #231-10-67 Clague Road., North Olnlstecl, a 44' wide lot, <br />whicli would result in sicie yard measureinents of fifteen feet9 <br />five feet less than the requirement stipulated in Section 1161001 <br />of the Zaning Ordinance. <br />Nlessrs. Nofel and kilbane were presente Mr. Klina.te read a letter <br />from the Board of Building Code Appeals dated April 3, 1965 approving <br />the above request for a house with measurements of 281011 x 36$411 with <br />detaclzed garage, witn a side ya.rd measureznealt of sixteen feet, tllereby <br />needing only a four foot variance, znstead of five feet as originally <br />requested. There were no objections. <br />Mrm Greene moved to grant the side yard variance of four feet. NIr. <br />Sckunitt secondedo Vote was unanimous. <br />2, Appellant: C. Oa Fischer Development Co,, 23203 Lorain Road, North <br />Olmsted9 Ohio. <br />Ref: Request for variance (1133.13) to erect a subdivision development <br />sign at the northwest coraner af Lorain Road and 'uVest Park Drive, <br />which vialates Section 1225001 (C) SuU 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, <br />which stipulates all development signs must be on development <br />property and within 500 feet ct the development, <br />Mr. Fischer represented his company. Tlessrs. James Brown, Frank Zolar <br />and Harry Reagan and Mrse P.eagan, a11 property owners on Evergreen <br />Drive adjains.ng the sigiz sitey were present to oppose the request. Mr. <br />Fischer pointecl out that the sign had already been erected be£ore ne <br />became aware that a variance request was involvedo (Site is owned by <br />Mr> Sau1 Biskind. ) The opposition was based on the fact thai one sigil <br />was alreac?y there, and considered unati,ractive, and the unsightly condi- <br />tion of the house and surrounding weeded area on the Biskind property. <br />Mr. klinite pointed out tnat the first sign erected was a non-conforining <br />use, and not subject to current regulationse <br />After conssderable negotiating between the adjoi.ning property own.ers <br />and Mr. Fischer, a general agreement was reac:ned as follotivs: Mr. <br />Piseher is to apprcach Mr. BisKincl to determirie if iMr. Biskind's sign <br />can be removed, and the grass on the property cut menthly, i.n wiiich