01/02/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I J BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 2, 1986 PAGE 2 10° from the side line eliminating the 50' buffer and would place the building within 50' of the residential property line to the rear. This condition will considerably reduce property values in the residential neighborhood where the homes are in the $100,000 range and will overburden the roads and increase traffic. The business as it stands now is well main- tained and not objectional and they have no problem with the storage build- ing in the buffer strip. It was pointed out however, that at a previous meeting, Mr. Hardy stated that with this planned expansion, he could be running 2 or possibly, 3 shiftso Mr. Hardy stated that at that time he was trying to emphasize that he had an industrial use, he does not plan to do this at this time. Mr. Given, a neighbor in the Industrial District, stated that this is industrial property and Mr. Hardy has improved the property considerably-and he see no objection to the proposal. Mr. Farver, who also owns industrial property across the street, stated that he had been present when the property adjacen t to this site had been rezoned to residential and he had obj ected-to - it -at _that--time on the basis- that this business-=would-not be.able to-expand. He had been told that there would be no problem. He also objected that when the restrictions were changed.for the Limited Industrial-District, the property=owners were not - notified. It was also brought out that some of the residents were not adyised that the adjacent property was zoned Limited Industry, and those who did know stated that they felt that they would be protected by the codes regulating this district. One resident brought up the present water pressure problems which he felt would be made worse by this proposal. This:.pzoblem--vril.l be-reviewed by..P-lanning_=Commission>and the Engineering , Department:wlien or -ifthis°- proposal?goes.-before`-them;-?-~Board,studied! Ord. _ 83-116 which:.changed.. the Limited --Industrial:_ requirements;:_._ Gouncilman. Wilamosky--was sworn in at this time and stated-that the Council has given direc?tion'regarding`buffers'to protect-the residential:-neighborhoods.- Board discussed the variance requested,. there was some confusion as to what was required for the side yard buffers under the revised ordinance. After discussion with the Law Director and the Acting Building Commissioner it was decided to continue the request for further study until the next meeting. Mr. Bugala suggested that Council pass an ordinance requiring real estate people to advise potential buyers if adjacent land is not zoned residential. E. Graves moved that this case be continued to the next Tegular meeting which is February 5th of this year, seconded by R. Bugala. Roll call on motion: Graves, Bugala, Gomersall, and Remmel, Aye. Mx. Helon abstained. Motion passed. Request continued, 1. Galati's Auto Service Center, 27539 Lorain Rd. , Request for special permit to add to non-conforming building. Special permit required Ord. 62-;33, Section 1231.03. Chairman R'emmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Galati, Mr. and Mrs. Parsnick, neighbors, and Councilmen Rademaker and Tallon. Neighbors complained that the property is not maintained and they can hear the employees working on cars, driving in and out, and that cars are parked on the grass. They want some kind of a buffer. Mr. Galati claimed that the city had made -him.remove the fence that had been= zher-e.- Law Director- Gareau- stated-= that_-the _Board could -= - require--a fence-. and/or planting and - that- more•°of the rear- of the iot should be paved-and cars - stored-there: -Councilman:Rademaker_statedthat°the %