06/02/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rymazczyk indicated that briefly looking at the new photometric plan it looks like variance requests #7 &#9 are eliminated but the applicants will still require variance request #8. The new plans show the poles to be 20 foot high atop a base however, the size of the base is not clear. Current code requires light bases to be 30 inches high so the light poles would be 22 1/2 feet ta11. He fuather advised that the applicant would need to call out the cutoff degree of the shields as they are not shown on the plans. Mr. F'arrell stated that due to the small size of the lot no matter where they placed the light pole they would require a variance. Mr. O'Malley expflained the definntion and differences between a use variance and area variances. He advised everyone present the procedures to be heard, present evidence and cross examine. He corrected Mr. Farrell's staternent as to which variances Planning Commission recommended approval on. He advised that Planning Commission only recommended approvals on variance requests #2 &#5. He further advised that althougla Pl?ing Commission makes recommendations to the Boa.rd of Zoning Appeals their fianction/charge is different froin that of Board of Zoning Appeais and they Iook at plans in a different manor than the Board of Zoning Appeals. Board membegs questioned if the apphcant lneva the green space area was zoned residentnal when he purchased the property. Mr. Halleen stated that he piarchased afll the dealerslup land at one time he thinks between 1987 and 1990 and he did not Imow the zoning of each parcel when he purchased it. He further sta.ted that he is still not sure of the zoning of each parcel. 1VIs. Duffy indicateci that she would like to purcbase the residentaal land which is referenced as the green space. Mr. Halleen sta.ted that none of his land as for sa1e. Ms. I.azosa, voiced that Mr. Halleen did in fact know that the Iand was residential as it is stated an minutes of past ineetings that he would never develop the green space. Mrs. Sergi asked if anyone had documents that stated the resadential grass would never be developed and would remain residential. Mrs. Larosa believed that in 1991 the Chevy Dealership was before Planning CoHnmission and 11ir. I3alleen stated they wmuld aaever touch the green sgace if the groposal was approved. Mr. O'1Vlalley questioned again if anyone present had documents to present to show what was being saad wa.s factual. 1VLs. Larasa and Ms. Duffy both presented documearts they had. The clerk copied a11 documents and distcibuted them to board ffiembers and the applicants. Mr. Hernan vmiced a concexai over the dcainage of the sgte. Mr. Hebebraad voiced that he did not want to see delivery trucks aiiowed onto Dewey 1Zoad. He also requested the heiglat of the light poles be lowered to a height no higher than the fenee #hey erect. Mr. Maxim questioned what type of shields the applicant woulcl have on the lights. Mrs. Sergi showed Mr. Maxim the new photometric plan tbat eiiminated variance 117 and #9. Mr. Maxim questioned the 5 foot setback along Dewey Road. 1Vir. Fatrell indicated that cairre8tly there is no iandscaping along I?ewey Road. His client would like to have conformity with his existing lot, and although they are vrilling to enhance the site wath landscaping if tlaey adhere to all the setback requirements the lot would be unusable to his client. Mr. O'IVlalley advised that the issue before the board is not landscaping or buffering the issue is cade requiPes a 20 foot setback and the appl'acants show a 15 foot setback. T'he question the applicant wass asked was why they ca.n not meet the 20 foot setback requirement along Dewey Road, IVIr. Farrell stated that numerous car dealerslups -up and down Lorain Road have all been granted variauees to place tlqeir ca.rs within the setbacks and his client does not vvant to purchase the property and be held to such restrictive setback requirements that other 8 of15