08/04/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. A 5 foot variance for a shed located too close to the rear property line, (code requires 10 applicant shows 51), section (1135.02 (D4)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (1)1)) and (1135.02 (D4)). T. Kelly seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. "Variance Granted" 2. C& C Realtv; 27932 Lorain Road: (WRD 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of site development. The following variances are requested: 1. A use variance for allowing parking & storage of vehicles for a car dealership on residentially zoned land, (code permits none, applicant shows parking), section (1123.12). 3. A 5 foot variance for parking setback along Dewey Road, (code requires 20', applicant shows 15'), section (1139.07) (table). 4. A 10 foot variance for parking setback along north properly line, (code requires 20', applicant shows 10'), section (1139.07) (table). 6. A variance for irrigation, (code requires irrigation; applicant shows none), section (1139.14). Which is in violation of 90-125, Sections (1123.12), (1139.07) (table). Note: 1). On 6/2/05 BZA tabled variance request #1, denied requests #3, #4, &#6, granted requests #2, #5, &#8 and due to photometric plans submitted variances #7 &#9 were withdrawn. 2). On 7/7/05 BZA granted reconsideration of variance requests #3, #4, &#6 and applicants request to table #1 use variance. Mr. Farrell the applicants attorney, Mr. Halleen the owner, and the following residents; Ms. Duffy, Ms. Larosa, and Mr. Pacsuta, each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Kremzar questioned if the applicant was asking for anything new for requests #3, #4, &#6. Mr. Farrell indicated that his client is requesting a use variance for his northern property which is zoned residential. His client has been paying commercial taxes on the residential property ever since it was consolidated with the commercial parcel. His client does not feel that there is any other viable use for the small section of land and it is unusable as zoned. The property can not accommodate a home as it does not meet the requirements for lot size nor does the land have frontage to a street. Furthermore, his client does not wish to sell any portion of his land. Therefore, as it can not be used nor produce a reasonable return under the current conditions it places a burden on his client. The use variance is not substantial in nature and his client would meet all the area requirements pertaining to setbacks for the section of land in question. Therefore, variance request #4 is withdrawn as his client will meet code requirements. He is not sure if his client had knowledge of the zoning when he purchased the dealership. Although in the 70's the previous owner indicated that the area would be used as a buffer zone he did not believe his client could or should be held to a previous owners promise. No City or Commission has the right to place a covenant upon a land owner as only an owner and buyer can place covenants upon a property being sold or bought. His client will meet the requests of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Boaxd pertaining to the landscaping and fencing requested. The only way to receive a viable return from the property is to be granted a use variance. Mr. Farrell stated that the June 26, 1979 minutes reflected that the Planning Commission chairman advised everyone present that at a later date the owner of the land could request the land be rezoned to commercial as the land had no residential use which has not changed since 1979. In October 26, 1993 Planning Commission minutes reflect that Mr. Carl Halleen stated to Planning Commission that he would not allow any restrictive covenants placed on the property as he was not sure what he would be doing with it. Mr. Farrell reviewed that the Ohio Supreme Court had guidelines similar to North Olmsted's. Whereby if an applicant shows practical difficulty with respect to being denied a viable use of his land and there would be no adverse or substantial impact on the health, safety, or welfare of the community then denial of a variance becomes 2of16