07/02/1975 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Zoning Appeals 7-2-75 - 4 - uses - it is not necessary to change type of use - he wants consistancy. He spoke of locating second building in relation to Lawson Building yrhich the same owner allowed to be constructed. He favors orderly development of land; this would be promoting disorderly development of land. Law Director Gareau then spoke: He questioned the notice. Mr. Gareau further stated that not in all instances is multifamily prohibited in business zoned areas; he gave exceptions; however, A Cluster Residential abuts this parcel. Ord. 62-33 Section 1133013 makes it incumbent upon this Board to conduct hearing; deprivation of propertv rights will be contrary to purposes of this Board. There was some question as to whether there was to be only argument or evidence or bothe Mr. Minnis wants to submit evidence. Mr. Gareau said substantial property rights can be de- veloped without loss (Section 1133.13 Par. (B)) - basically to have gen- eral retail business to be developed as general retail business - it is not healthy to have any residential structure surrounded by commercial. The contemplated Extension should be Class A Cluster residentialo As evidence Mr. Gareau gave the three criteria for variances. ' Mr. Simmons, 5293 tiP,Tellesle,y Ave., owner of the property in question, spoke at this time.. He has owned the prvperty since 1956 and has made the im- ;provements. The Lawson store was built in 1973 and there was no zoning question at that time. He was asked -what other kinds of uses for this property he had considered. Mr. Simmons answered there were no othero He desires to build the a,partments, they will enhance the neighborhood; it is lifetime investment on his partm Mr. Simmons was asked wha.t handicaps he faceso Mr. Simmons stated after August 1 he tiaill.thave to go to electric heat. Nothing else substantial has been proposed for the parcel. Parking and parking spaces was discussed, also -,rubbish collection. It was men- tioned by Mr. Simmons that the entrance to the Bretton Ridge Recreation Area is partially on Simmons' property. The apartments would be located approximately 20 ft. from the recreation area. Traffic from the apart- ments will partially empty on Christman Drive and nartially through LaYison parking lot. Mr. Simmons stated there are 1,000 cars daily from Bretton Ridge property owners onto Lorain Rd. Mr. Friedman questioned Mr. Simmons about this number. Nir. Simmons confixmed the number of 1,000 cars daily. Mr. Friedman said to_Mr. Simmons that he has unimpaired right to build re- tail business establishment on his property. Nfr. Friedman asked if Nir. Simmons has no earnest or direct purpose to use hiG land for purpose for which it -was intended. Tt was stated there is no appealing a ruling; but variance:?is request. Mr. Friedman asked if building conforms with all ordinanceso AnsVier was in the affirmative, but this was not considered a pertinent question. Mr. Gareau asked N1r. Simmons if he had had an anpraisal done on his rear pro- perty. Mr. Simmons answered in the negative'. Zoning Board of Appeals member Mr. Tubbs asked to see the plans. Drawings of buildings and plot nlans taere examined by Board members and explained by Mr. Simmons. A1 Stinn of Bretton Ridee vaas administered the oath at this time. He spoke of the cost of fuel and asked why didn't Mr. Simmons know the details. He stated southbound trafic from proposed apartments would be go,ing through Bretton Ridge. Recycled Bond - One etep to eave our eavixonment