02/08/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r r r ? • Dubelko stated that this is the first application for a conditional use permit since the new codes went into effect. An applicant would ha.ve the right to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a vari:ance, but the code is not clear as to what the process is. Even if they did obtain a variance, Planning Commission would still have the discretion to grant or deny the conditional use permit under the code. Mr. Conway advised that that section of the zoning codes stated that the Planning Commission must determine if the area is adequate for the development relative to the size of the building, parking, open spaces, etc. It probably should not even go on to the B.Z.A. if this board made a determination tha.t this lot was too small to support the development as shown. There are only mininnm, setbacks in the code, no minimum lot size. Mr. Dubelko stated that he is not really sure how the variance process would work in with the conditional use process, initially he thought that they could go to B.Z.A. to get variances on the minimums, and then the Planning Commission could still exercise their discretion as to whether or not to grant the conditional use permit. His advice would be if the applicant wanted to go forward, he should be allowed to if he understands that, everi if he gets the variances, he must come back before Planning Commission, who could still deny the proposal. He quoted section 1118.04 which stated that Planning Commission can add any additional standards or conditions that they feel are necessary. Mr. Conway agreed, but believed that this board has the right to deny it, either before or after B.Z.A. has heard it. Mr. Dubelko further stated that the code stipulates that they cJOUld only have a 6 month period to start construction after Planning Commission had approved the permit, so it would be best to let them go to B.Z.A. first. The members agreed that they would not refer inaccurate drawings to B.Z.A. and the applicant would have to return with final drawings. Mr. Thomas explained that the last time they sent inaccurate drawings to the B.Z.A. the plans changed so much that what the Conmnission had recomended no longer applied. He suggested that if they were serious about going forward they would need an architecturally drawn site plan and then they could return and the Commission would make recommendations to the B.Z.A. for the variancese Mr. Conway believed that Mr. Wooten would like to lmow if the Commission did not find this lot to be adequate to support the developMent. Mr. Thomas believed that the Commission had made that clear, but they just wanted him to know that he did have the right to go forward. rir. Dubelko clarified that he did not think Planning Commission could grant a conditional use perrnit when the minimums of the district are not met, a variance would be required, so the Planning Commission would have to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals with recommendations, either favorable or unfavorable. When it comes back the conditional Use permit could either be approved or denied. rlr. Tallon agreed, noting that section 1118.01(b) stated that "an application for a conditional use permit shall not be approved tmless the following conditions and standards are complied with". Mr. Conway clarified the setbacks; the setbacks from the street relate to the residential requirements, 50 feet off Clague and 25 feet off Delmere, however the 75 foot setback relates to the northerly property line (next to the residence). N1r. Gdooten noted that if they found property between two houses they would need 75 foot on each side. Mr. Dubelko stated that from a legal viewpoint they are fighting an uphill battle, because by asking for a variance, they are stating that there are practical difficulties which prevent them from complying to the minimums of the code, and secondly, even if they get the variances, they would stili have to get the conditional use permit if the Commission believed that it would not cause any harr,i to the adjacent residents. The reason for the side yards is to limit the potential for naise or lighting onto the residential property. Mr. Thomas advised that if a neighbor objected, ne would be hard pressed not to agree with them. At this point, Mr. Hamrick, who