02/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dealership is only going to compound those problems. He is concerned for the safety of his children, as there will be patrons on the lot when the dealership is closed as there are now. However, instead of being 50-feet from his property line they will now be less than 10-feet. Board members comments: Mrs. Sergi asked where the service bays would be located. Mr. Kula indicated that the service bay would be on north side of new addition. Mrs. Diver stated that she was hesitant to act on the applicants request as the board was never given an opportunity to see the plans or the Planning Directors report prior to the start of their meeting and did not feel she was prepared to vote on any of the requests. Board members W. Kremzar, T. Kelly and N. Sergi agreed with Mrs. Diver's comments and suggested the abutting neighbors concerns should be loolced at by the applicant and the request should return for a final ruling. Law Department comments: Mr. O'Malley recommended the chairman reference the report submitted from the Planning Director for the record and to have the clerk provide the applicant a copy of the report. He explained that the existing building on the corner is within the Historic District, it is not a landmark building, nor is there a plaque, and as such the Landmarks Commission does have some jurisdiction. The issue of demolishing the building has already been addressed by Landmarks and the Certificate of Appropriateness was denied. Since then Landmarks commissioners have worked with the owner to try to save the building. The owner offered a form of a cash donation and the building to anyone who was interested in moving the building to save it and nothing has come of that. The issue of saving the building failed but it wasn't a lack of effort by the owner or the Landmarlcs Commission. The current proposal will also go before the Landmarks Commission on February 14, 2005 for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed addition. Each of the City Boards and Commissions has different jurisdictions and functions. The function of the Board does not include the broader planning considerations which affect a good or bad plan, or adverse impacts arising from said plans. The Board of Zoning Appeals charge is adjudicating property rights. The applicant proceeds to the board that the strict and harsh application of the zoning code deprives him/her of their property rights and is seeking relief from the Board. The abutting property owners have a right to protest that if the board relaxes the zoning code standards that it would somehow be detrimental to their property rights. There are two types of variances being requested; a use variance which involves a hardship standard and zoned for residential but the applicant wants to use it as commercial. The area variance may require the applicant to have a 20-foot setback distance by code, but they want to lcnow if they can get by with an 18-foot setback. There are currently two lots which were previously granted use variances and there could be other variances as well that could have been gra.uted in earlier phases. He encouraged the board members to refer to the standards outlined in the codes. Mr. Maloney stated that the Board was not given a sufficient amount of time to properly review the request. Therefore, the board will have the applicants return so the board can properly evaluate the documentation submitted and make a fair ruling. W. Kremzar moved to table Halleen Kia of 27726 Lorain Road variance requests until the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of March'3, 2005. M. Diver seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Review and correction of minutes: Mr. Weber the owner came forward to be sworn in and address his request for reconsideration. He would like the opportunity to readdress the board. He stated that he was so nervous at the 6