Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />I. Rol1 Call <br />PLANIVING COMMISSION <br />June 24, 1975 <br />Chairman Prokasy called the meeting to order at 8:12 p,m. Secretary Eian <br />called the roll. <br />1'resent: Chairman Prokasy, Mrs, Eian and Messrs. Roberts, Elliott, Freeh <br />and Rafeld. <br />Also Present: Mr. Gundy' Building Commissioner9 Mr. Hessler, Assistant Law <br />Airector and Mrs. V. Hodgins, Recording Secretary. <br />IIe Review and Correction of Minutes <br />2tem II (a) (1) about middle of second page "It was expl.ained one of the <br />permitted uses in .•. ..(should be commercial instead of residential". Mr. <br />Freeh moved to accept minutes as correctedo. Mr. Elliott seconded and mo- <br />tion passed. <br />TTI. Building Department <br />(a) Old Requests <br />(1) 5i?nmons Apartment Building - Christman and lorain <br />Present were Mr. and Mrs. Simmons, Harry Babcock, Pres. of Bretton <br />Ridge Civic Associationp Cvuncilman Wilamosky. <br />Mre Gundy said proposal had been postponed at last meeting for re- <br />ferral tv Safety Director. Meanwhile the I}irector of Law was ask- <br />ed by Council.man Wilamosky for legal opinion. Law Dir ector Gareau <br />has ruZed proposal is in conflict with the zoning ordinance. Mr. <br />Gundy had interpreted,the Simmons application as being in accord- <br />ance with the laws; he defers to Law Director's opiniono Mr. Pro- <br />kasy gave review of the opinion: a@joining the parcel under con- <br />sideration is Class A Cluster. Interpretation is parcel must be <br />used for Class A Cluster residential. Some Planning Commission <br />members expressed confusion in regard to the opinion. Mr. Minnis, <br />attorney for Mr. Simmons mentioned setback, but basic issue is <br />permitted nseso During discussion following it was stated ac- <br />cording to the legal opinion, proposal does not meet the code - <br />perhaps traditional history of apartment or multi-family in so?ne <br />developments along the whole area was of improper interpretationa <br />The opinion may be reprehensibl.e. Perhaps more disagreeable type <br />of enterprise will be located on the parcel after litigation. <br />Perhaps Zona.ng Board wi11 give variance for multifamily use. Mr. <br />Wilamosky had no additional comments at this time. Mr. D. Ernest <br />quoted from the Zoning Ordinance and gave his interpretation. Chr. <br />Prokasy stated any decision by this Commission does not change <br />the use of the lot; he gave possible alternative actions for the <br />developera Mro Rafeld moved to reject Simmons Apartment Develop- <br />ment at Christman and Lorain based on the opinion of the Law Dir- <br />ector. Mrs. Eian seconded and motion passed. Roll Call on mo- <br />tion: Mr. Rafeld, Mrs. Eian, Mre Freeh and Mr. Prokasy aye. Mr. <br />Roberts,nay.