Laserfiche WebLink
t.r <br />that is why they are here. Law Director Gareau advised that codes are designed to control the <br />building on parcels of land, if a parcel of land is zoned for General Retail, the owner has a right <br />to use it for General Retail. The setbacks and side yard were changed several years ago, but the <br />problem is that the city cannot enact Zoning Ordinances that make a parcel of land completely <br />unusable, because that would be considered a taking of property without due process of law <br />which is the same as appropriating property for city use. The xeason there is a Board of Zoning <br />Appeals is for an individual to come for variances, and they have to satisfy 3 criteria: 1) because <br />of the size, shape, and topography of the land that they own there is a hardship that is basically <br />ingrained in the piece of property itself simply because of that size, shape, and topography, but <br />that hardship has nothing to do with financial hardslup; the next criteria would be if they are not <br />granted a variance, they would be denied a substantial property right; and the third criteria is <br />that once the board looks at tlus and the variance request, the board must decide that, if they <br />grant the variance, it must completely be within the spirit of the code to grant that variance <br />snnply because of the way other property immediate area is developed. If the building is built <br />according to the code, it would be unusable. Mr. Pfaff advised that the last time a variance was <br />granted to these developers, they put in a building that was 4 inches from his property line. In <br />reference to that, Mr. Gareau recalled that this had been an irregular shaped lot, and there had <br />beeri a ruling made at that time as to what constituted a rear yard and what constituted a side <br />yard and the way it turned out the jogs iu the lot that ran parallel to Lorain Road were <br />considered to be side yard, not rear yard, so the side yard requirements prevailed. Mr. Pfaff <br />lfliew that this board could not do anytluug about that, but he believed the members should <br />laiow about the situation. Mr. Gomersall stated that this board could only work within the <br />frame work of this request and they would like to work things out with the developers and the <br />residents, he believed it would serve no purpose to flat out refuse the requests. Mrs. Wensenk <br />stated that they, already had a problem with tractor trailers.coming down their street which has <br />rio outlet and'theu having to back out and she was,also concerned because trucks would be <br />coming into the back of tlus property. She stated that she could not pull out of her street to get <br />to the Med Center during an emergency because of the traffic and believed that because of the <br />size of the build.ing there would be a visibility problem, as well as the additional traffic which <br />would increase the safety problems. She questioned if a traffic light could be installed. Mr. <br />Gareau advised that the traffic light would have to be warranted by the State. Mr. Mongello <br />advised that the owners would be willing to eliminate the access onto Fleharty and come around <br />the side of the building to the back. They agreed that they would put in a guardrail to prevent <br />trucks going out onto Fleharty. Mr. Kelly asked the city to mail a print of these plans to every <br />resident on the street. He was advised that he could look at the plans in the Building <br />Department. Mr. McKee, who maintains the property, advised that the owners are good at <br />authorizing him to maintain property, but occasionally a dumpster truck will come in earlier <br />than allowed and if the neighbors notify him, he will take care of it. One neighbor complained <br />that trucks have blocked the street now, so residents cannot get out of their drives. This will <br />make matters worse. Mr. Orlowski pointed out that if the board allows a drive along the side <br />of the building, all the green space on Fleharty will be eliminated. Mr. Gomersall responded that <br />this has not been addressed. Mr. McKee suggested that the street be posted `?io trucks" and <br />then the police could ticket them. Mr. May doubted that the owners want to work with the <br />neighbors, since they never notified them about their plans. It was explained that the city <br />notifies only the abutting properties. Mr. May believed that the developer could have notified <br />them. Mrs. Wensenk questioned if there would be landscaping on Fleharty, and noted that this <br />4