Laserfiche WebLink
Diver questioned if the area would be irrigated. Mr. Farrell stated his client would rather not <br />irrigate as it would be a substantial burden. <br />Ms. Larosa stated that the residents were promised that the area in question would remain as green <br />space forever. Mr. Kremzar _questioned if Ms. Larosa had anything in writing from the applicant <br />stating the space would remain greenspace. Ms. Larosa indicated that she only had letters inviting <br />residents to meetings held at the dealership. She did not feel that the applicant should park cars in <br />the area in question nor did she want the additional lighting in the area. She suggested that there <br />was a dog at the dealership which barks a lot. Mr. Farrell asked how the chain link fence looked to <br />Ms. Larosa. Ms. Larosa stated it looked f ne as they maintained their side of the fence. Mr. Farrell <br />questioned if Ms. Larosa was present at the ARB meeting when the board requested the trees, <br />landscaping and vinyl fencing and asked if she thought that would be an improvement to the site. <br />Ms. Larosa stated that the owner never follows what he is told. <br />Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the use variance was tabled and he had submitted memos in the past <br />to the board explaining section 1123.12 which covers use variance requirements which must be <br />met. It is the applicant's burden to show the three factors of hardship for the use variance. The <br />use variance request must show an un-necessary hardship as well as other factors such as <br />something unique and peculiar to the property that distinguishes it from neighboring properties. <br />The refusal of the use variance would have to deprive the owner of a substantial property rights. <br />The granting of the use variance should not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the code. All <br />three of those elements must be shown to be granted a use variance. He further explained that area <br />variance requirements and use variance requirements axe two different entities and have totally <br />different requirements. The area variance has seven different factors that must be shown and is not <br />related to the use variance. The requests referred to as #3, #4, &#6 are area variances and were <br />previously denied by the BZA, and then granted reconsideration to be addressed at this meeting <br />and the applicant has failed to address those factors. However the applicant has withdrawn request <br />#4 as they state that they will meet the setback requirements. He advised the board to base their <br />decisions on the probative, reliable and substantial evidence presented. <br />Mr. Farrell advised that his client had been a viable part of the community and the area he is trying <br />to improve is currently in a blight state and he is trying to develop it into a viable use and improve <br />the area. Not only will his client benefit from the development of the sites but the city as well as <br />all the homeowners along Dewey Road will benefit from the development as his client will be <br />improving the entrance to their road. Denying his client the use variance is depriving him the right <br />to use his land. His client does have an undue hardship as the land is landlocked and can not be <br />used as it is currently zoned and deprives his client an economical use. Furthermore the spirit and <br />intent of the zoning code will not be violated as it is already part of the existing dealership. <br />Mr. Kremzar questioned the area variances requested. Mr. Farrell indicated that the variances for <br />the parcel at the corner of Dewey and Lorain Road are due to the fact that if all the setback <br />requirements are followed the parcel would be unusable. His client would lose 34% of the land if <br />the setback requirements are followed. The northern setback of 20 feet would be followed as it <br />abuts residents but along Dewey Road they would like the landscape area to match that of the KIA <br />corner. Mr. O'Malley advised that the applicants were withdrawing #4, but still requesting #3 and <br />#6. Mr. Farrell indicated that was correct and the reason they do not want to irrigate is that due to <br />the relationship to the dealership to meet the requirement of irrigating the site his client would <br />have to dig up the dealerships parking lot to run the water lines. The amount of landscaping <br />proposed is not substantial and the city code does not have a provision that requires an owner to <br />use the irrigation system even if it is put in. An irrigation system would be a very costly process <br />and would yield no return. <br />4of16