05/06/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c } ? situation worse; the owner of a self service ca.r wash also thought that traffic would back up, she was advised tha.t this was an automa.tic conveyor type operation; and there was cancern about the safety of the children walking to St. Richards. Mre Gareau advised that some weight mu.st be given to the Planning Commission's study and recommendations since they studied that matter. He observed that there were 3 pages of minutes covering this. This abandoned building has been a rru.isance for the last 10 or 15 years. Mra Grace stated that he did not think it would be to the City's advantage to replace this building with another problem, he does not believe that a policeman could be obtained when the traffic backed up. Mr. Barnett presented a letter from his traffic engineer who studied the proposal ancl explained that the traffic study was approved by the City's traffic engineer and the Planning Commission. Even though this is a request for a variance, Mr. Gomersall believed that the traffic problems should not be overlooked. The menibers agreed. Mr. Ulisse asked for a continuance for further study of the traffic problems since they ha,d not lmown that this would be an issue at this meeting since it had been thoroughly discussed with other Boards. Mr. Grace stated that this Board must form its own opinions. Law Director Gareau disagreed, stating t-hat as the Law Director of the City of North Olmsted, he must advise that this Board does not have the right to make a decision ba.sed on a popular vote. There are three criteria for granting a variance, and traffic is not one of them. He does not object to their deliberating on this, but it is not correct to indicate to these people that a decision can be based on what the citizens want or do not want. Mr. Grace disagreed and stated that he could vote on how he thinks this will effect these people. Again, Mr. Gareau stated the three criteria for granting a variance, and explained that a separate vote should be taken relative to those standaxds; based on the size, shape, or topography of the land, is there a hard.ship that inures to this property, not a financial hardship; if a variance is refused, will the owner be deprived of a substantial property right, and three, is it in the substantial keeping of the Zoning Code to grant a variance; that is what the Board is to judge by, not traffic, not wha.t is in the best interest of the individuals. As Law Director, it is his obligation to instruct the Board on this. He explained that the audience should have objected on the basis of how close the structure was to the road, etc. The City could be sued for denying a variance based on traffic, there is enough law to establish that a person.caunot be denied a building permit where it is properly zoned or a variance based solely on traffic, traffic is the City's problem. It was explained to the peop7Le who did not receive a Planning Commission notice, that the notification procedures are different from those for the Board of Zoning Appeals and that this proposal still has to go to Council. Mr. Grace questioned the standard on the hardship, could. this be a two sided hardship. Mr. Gareau repeated that it must be a hardship that inures or is imique within the property itself. For instance, the 40 foot wide lot on Porter Road because itc is narrow it is tmique, particularly to the properties on the other side, and the ha,rdship is that it is so small. From a constitutional aspect, if a person is not allowed to build on it, he would be deprived of a substantial property right. Also in keeping with the Zoning Code, there are other 40 foot lots that have been built on. Even though the Board d.id not vote on all three issues in that case, it would be clear that these had been considered. Mr. Grace stated that the 42 front setback will allow them to put up a building that is going to affect the traffic. Again Mr. Gareau explained the three criteria. Mr. Barnett stated that only an 8 foot overhang was to be added to the building. Since Mr. Barnett was advised that if this is denied he could not return for one year, he asked that the his request be continued so that he cam consult with his attorney. R. Gomersall moved that the request of Velvet Touch Auto Wash, 27100 Lorain Road be continued until the June 3rd meeting, seconded by J. Maloney, and unanir,iously approved. Continued. 6