08/04/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

impermissibly restrictive as it deprives the owner the use of his property. For the Board to deny the use variance would in fact be restrictive to his client. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the current Halleen owner had knowledge of the zoning of the land in question. Mr. Farrell stated he did not think his client knew of the zoning. Mr. Halleen was asked if he was part owner of the C& C Realty (Chevrolet Dealership). Mr. Halleen answered he was a partner in the Chevy dealership. Mr. Halleen was asked to identify the section of land in question and he accurately identified the section on the site plan. Mr. Halleen agreed with his attorney that the land had no other viable use, was landlocked, and did not front on any street. Mr. Halleen was again asked if he knew the land was residential when purchased. Mr. Halleen suggested that he was not sure what happened and it was attorney Giesser that represented the owner in 1979. He did not think that the land could yield a reasonable return if the use variance was not granted. Mr. Halleen did not feel that the use variance was substantial but would be beneficial as that is the only way he could use his land. He did not feel that the caricature of the neighborhood would be altered by the development of the area nor would the neighboring property suffer from the development of the area. Mr. Halleen stated that he did not believe that he knew the land was zoned residential when he purchased it. He stated that if the use variance was granted he would adhere to the area requirements pertaining to setbacks and buffering. He indicated that the existing chain link fence would be replaced with a vinyl fence, as requested and the area would only be used for parking cars. He further suggested that the only time cars had been in the area was with permission from the Building Department during pavement work. Mrs. Sergi asked when Mr. Halleen purchased the dealership. Mr. Halleen believed that he purchased the dealership some time in the 1980's, but not sure of the exact date. Mr. O'Malley advised that if the applicant was done presenting their evidence the board should then allow those sworn in an opportunity to cross-examine the applicant and present their case. Ms. Duffy presented claim documents to board members. She believed the land in question was purchased by Halleen in September 1973 from Dorothy Snyder and she purchased her home from Mr. Halleen, but was not sold the entire lot. She was only sold 156-feet of the 400-hundred foot parcel. Mrs. Sergi asked if it was the current Carl Halleen who sold her the home. Ms. Duffy stated that it was the Uncle of Carl Halleen who sold her, her home and broke off a section of the parcel. She then passed out copies of a letter from Mr. Halleen dated September 18, 1984, advising her husband that they would have to remove their belongings from the section of property as it was being fenced into the dealership. A letter dated August 13, 1985, addressed to City Council was also submitted. Ms. Duffy stated that she wanted to purchase the section of land back from the dealership. The clerk made copies of the docuxnents presented by Ms. Duffy for board members, city attorney and applicant's attorney. Mr. Farrell questioned if the section of land in question was already split away from Ms. Duffy's parcel when she purchased it. Ms. Duffy stated that the parcel was split in 1979 the same year she purchased the parcel but it was before she purchased the lot. Mr. Farrell indicated that the letter to council requested the dealership plant trees and landscape the property. He reviewed that his client was proposing to plant trees and landscape a section of the parcel and questioned if Ms. Duffy still wanted that. Ms. Duffy said not really. Mr. Farrell then asked Ms. Duffy if she thought the site looked a mess and needed to be addressed. Ms. Duffy said she would like to purchase the land in question. Mr. Farrell stated that she could discuss that outside the meeting. Mr. Farrell reviewed that there would be a 20 foot buffer area on three sides of the land in question as requested by the PC and ARB as well as a vinyl fence. The section of parcel in question will be approximately eighty-two hundred square feet of setbacks which is giving up the use of 43.54% of land. Ms. 3of16