Laserfiche WebLink
. ,? <br />, .- • <br />Board of Zoning Appeals <br />November 27, 1985 <br />Page 4 <br />is to permit construction on the lot, and not to <br />destroy the buildable width of the lot with an <br />excessive setback requirement. Moreover, the building meets all other requirements with regard <br />to size, area, parking, setback along Lorain Road <br />and utilities. If the building can not be built <br />the land will lie fallow and unproductive. <br />Construction of the building will permit retail <br />development and business, increased taxes and <br />permit the development of the land for the <br />overall convenience and prosperity of the municipality. <br />Therefore, my client meets all of the conditions required <br />for the granting of a variance by this Board. <br />A comment has been made that the lot might comply with the <br />fifty (50) foot setback, but for the appropriation by the State <br />Highway Department for the widening of S.R. 252. Prior to the <br />appropriation, the lot of record, was ninety-five (95) feet <br />wide. Approximately twenty (20) feet was taken from the width <br />of the lot in the appropriation, leaving a lot width of <br />approximately seventy-five (75) feet. The proposed building <br />is fifty (50) feet wide. Therefore, even if there were no <br />"take", and my client was left with the original ninety-five <br />(95) foot wide lot to build upon, my client would still require <br />a setback variance if the fifty (50) foot setback were to <br />apply along S.R. 252. <br />The Zoning Board of Appeals should either interpret the <br />setback at twenty-five (2.5) feet, or in the alternative modify <br />the setback to twenty-eight (28) feet, for the same reasons: <br />it is reasonable to do so, it is in accord with the obvious <br />intent of the Zoning Ordinance and exception for corner lots, <br />it will make the lot buildable with a viable building, and it <br />will save the constitutionality of the Zoning Ordinance. <br />This case raises a substantial constitutional question of my client under both the Federal and State Constitutions. A <br />denial of the variance or modification requested, will result <br />in the denial of the owner's property without due process of <br />law and the denial of the equal protection of the laws, in <br />violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution <br />and its counterpart provisions in the Constitution of the State <br />of Ohio.