07/02/1980 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 2, 1980 PAGE 4 nance. Mr. Gareau and Mr. Martindale urged that the case proceed wi.th- out being recessed until proper subpoeneas are submitted. Exhibit B (objection of subpoena issued June 24, 1980) is.accepted. Mr. Archer explained that the Foundation is under a contractual agreement with contingencies to buy the Butternut Ridge Property. These contingencies are: 1) approval of financing 2) approval of appropriate action by the Zoning Board, and 3) obtaining licens.ing from the State of Ohio. If the Board does not grant the variance the Foundation is not obligated to purchase the property. Mr. Martindale contended that no hardship was involved in this case for the following reasons; ±) No specific people had been assigned to this home, so no specific person would suffer a hardship if this variance were not granted 2) Neither the Board of West Haven, Mr. Archer, nor any of the other individuals in connection with West Haven would suffer a financial hardship if this variance were not granted. The only real financial hardship involved would be the amount lost as dictated by the contractual agreement with the owners of property if West Haven could not use the property for the proposed home. Mr. Martindale claimed that this property could be used as a single family residence, and there -was no hardship involved with the property itself. Mr. Martindale also stated that it would be possible to provide a family setting for the retarded in places other than a single family residential area. Mr. Archer stated in response to Mr. MartindalePs questioning, that.he was not familiar with real estate law so he was not aware that a real estate agent was required by law to advise a potential buyer of property adjacent to a nursing home for the retarded of the presence of such a home. Neither was Mr. Archer aware of a study which claimed that private homes adjacent to such a home were devalued by about $25.000. Mr. Hickman -submitted the re'al estate contract with the present owners of the-property showing the fin"'ancial loss to the Foun- dation if the sale cannot be consumated, as welI. as the documents of incorporation of West Haven. Mr. Martindale objected because these are only part of the documents subpoenaed. Chairman Ledvina accepted the . documents for the Board: Exhibits I(the realestate offer) and Exhibit II (the Incorporation Papers of Westco Foundation for Retarded). In response to Mro Martindale's statement that this home was no different from many other homes in the City, Mr. Archer stated that this home was originally built for a handicapped person, and even though none of the occupants of the home would be handicapped, the State of Ohio had standards for handicapped cahich had to be met. Mr. Martindale stated that the Court of Appeals in Franklin County had ruled that it is a constitutional violation of a City°s Charter to permit this use in a residenttial distric.t. This is naw tmder appeal but it may or may not be heard by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Since it has been ruled that there is no constitutional groLmds on which to make a distinction from the retarded from other groups, the granting of a variance for this home for the retarded would set a precedent for various groups other than those with developmental disabilities. This would be an argument for a broader interpretation than what the Board -is granti.ng here. Mr. Martindale stated that there is no way that the Board can find a