|
J= ? Y
<br />BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APRIL 6, 1988 PAGE 2
<br />Mr. Khouri, Mr. Zayac, and Mr. Valore, their attorney. Chairman Remmel stated
<br />that the first request was an appeal of the Building.Official's decision, but
<br />this appeal was- made beyond the 10 day limitation, however, the Board will
<br />hear it. He exDlained that the Building Director's interpretatiou stated
<br />that since Bentley Drive only intersects the southern curb of Lorain Avenue
<br />and does not cut across or divide by passing through the northern curb, there
<br />is no intersection on the northern side; based on this, the nearest inter-
<br />sect.ing street is Walter Road which is well in excess of the required 60 feet.
<br />Mr. Pattison agreed but stated that Bentley is a dedicated street, serves a
<br />very large residential communitV and comes in directly ouposite the proposed
<br />driveways. He stated, for the record, it is not his position or purnose to
<br />delay or alter this proposed development; he is not trying to stop it or
<br />downsize it, the pronosal as approved by the Planning Commission meets with
<br />his satisfaction; and that this proposal does not directly effect his property,
<br />either personally or financially, although there will be an indirect effect.
<br />He is not trying to discredit the Building Commissioner, the Law Director, or
<br />the Planning Commission. His concern is the way these issues have been passed
<br />through the Boards:ofthe City and believes that these issues should have gone
<br />before this Board initially, and is grateful that the Board has agreed to hear
<br />this even though there is some question as to the ruling date. He is princi-
<br />pally interested in having the ordinances of the Citv nroperly interpreted and
<br />upheld,if there is a need for them to be violated for just cause or hardship,
<br />this must be done by proner procedure as established by the Board of Zoning
<br />Avpeals. He stated tYiat, especiall_y since there are several large developments
<br />of more expensive homes coming into the City, it is important that developers
<br />realize that the ordinances will be enforced to protect the general welfare
<br />of its residents. fin reference to the section of the code pertaining to
<br />intersecting streets, this interDretation adds additional meaning to the ordi-
<br />nauce, (he nointed out that he was not objecting to this particular proposal
<br />s.ince, because of.the amount of frontage they have, he could see no better
<br />solution) but in the past both Planning Commission and BZD Committee of Council
<br />have at times insisted that driveways be relocated because of their proximity
<br />to streets across from them and believes that this interpretation could pre-.
<br />clude these bodies from requiring this. Chairman Remmel questioned how the
<br />Law Department had made its internretation. Assistant Law Director Dubelko
<br />exnlained that in the first instance, it is up to the Bui.lding Commissioner to
<br />determine the intent of the code, and to attempt, when the codes are not clear,
<br />to determine the intent of the code; when asked for legal advice, the Law De-
<br />partment must consider two basic principals, one, if the City intends to
<br />restrict the owner's use of the property, it has to do so clearly, if there
<br />are any doubts, they are usuall_y resolved in the favor of the owner.; and two, because the Zoning Codes imposes the responsibility of ma.king these interpre-
<br />tations on the Building Commissioner, the Law Department will uphold his
<br />interpretation, so long as they are reasonable and are capable of being de-
<br />fendecl in court, and in this instance, they have no reasons to disnute the
<br />determination made by the Building Commissioner. Chairman Remmel moved to
<br />grant this apneal or variance as requested, seconded by J. Helon. Board
<br />discussed motion and Mr. Dubelko advised that there was no variance to be
<br />granted, that it would be proper for the Board to either grant or not grant
<br />the apneal as requested. C. Remmel moved to grant the anpeal of Mr. Pattison,
<br />seconded by B. Grace. Mr. Valore questioned if the owner could present his
<br />side of the issue and advised that the developers are not requesting a vari- p
<br />ance and want it clarified that:if the Board grant the appeal, they would be
<br />stating that this is, in fact, an intersecting street. Mr. Dubellco agreed
|