06/08/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 8, 1988 PAGE 2 property values. They are painting the ramp white and will landscape around it with mounding and trees. They are requesting that ordinances be drawn up to permit and regulate skate board ramps. Mrs. Everhard verif.ied that. her son has had a ramp for three years, stating that she could not hear the noise from his ramp from her neighbor's house behind her property; she believes that what the boys are doing is commendable, that they are trying to do this legally, that this is not a permanent structure, that this activity is a good outlet for the boys, and pointed out that they could be vandalizing property. Councilwoman Bahas, who is also a realtor, stated that regarding property values it would depend on the buyer and stated that this is a whole- some sport. Mr. Thompson, a neighbor who lives three houses to the east of the ramp, stated thatlie,.was speaking for the neighbors'who are opposed to the ramp, that they are not against skate boarding, but they are against this particular ramp in this particular location because of the noise it creates and because they believe it will devalue their property. He presented a letter from his real estate agent which concluded that the skate board ramp would significantly devalue his property. He presented a petition signed by neighbors on Randall Drive and those on Mitchell Drive whose property abuts the back yards on Randall and a chart showing the results of that petition and the relationship of those homes to the Schneid home which concluded that 76% of those asked were against the ramp. Mr. Grace does not believe that a petition would be a fair representation of the situation and, as a real.tor:;: does not believe that a ramp would devalue property. He is ques- tioning why this is before the Board. Law Director Gareau advised that the Building Commissioner was obligated to present this to the Board since ska.te board ramps are not a specific permitted use, an accessory use, nor was it a like and similar use to another permitted use. C. Remmel moved that the Board has determined that a skate board ramp is not an enumerated permitted use, nor an accessory use within a residential district and also that it cannot be determined to be a like or similar use to other uses enumerated, seconded by R. Gomersall. Roll call on motion: Remmel, Gomersall, and Bugala, yes. Grace and Helon, no. Motion passed. Ruling is that a skate board ramp is not a permitted use. Mr. Schneid was advised to request that Council draw up legislation to permit these ramps and set forth guidelines for their construction. Councilman McKay suggested that the applicants contact the Recreation Department in order to have such a facility at the Recreation Complex. - 2. Donald and Sharon Steiner, 5561 S. Porter Rd. Request for ruling (1123.10). Request ruling if a bike ramp is a permitted accessory use in'a residential district. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Steiner, D. Steiner, Mr. and Mrs. Costa, S. Cornish, Mr. and Mrs. Miller, and J. Fairfield. Mrs. Steiner advised that she had sub- mitted a letter to the Board which stated their position and pointed out that a bike ramp is different from a skate board ramp since there is very little . noise. She maintains that the bike ramp has been there 'for three years and only one complaint was made and that was after the article appeared in .the P1ain Dealer. Ony four or five boys use this ramp and only for about fifteen minutes at a time since the sport is tiring. Mr.. Costa, a neighbor, is in favor of the ramp, believes it is a constructive activity for the boys,- - pointing out that because they live so close to:the school.they have seen much destructive activity; does not believe the ramp.will devalue his property;