09/06/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... . never?a formal agreement between Chick-Fil-A and Randall House it was their intent to seek an easement. However they have tried to make contact with the owner to create an agreement to use the drive but the owner has refused to meet. The buiTding commissioner was aware that years ago there were bollards on the site but not sure 11ow many and thought the previous owners had an agreement with the applicant for drive access. When he found out that there was no longer an agreement he researched the files to determine what was originally approved for both sites. The two plans in the building department from 1975 had one showing grass and the other didn't. The plan from the engineering department dated 7/2/75 showed grass therefore based on the three drawings his memo to the owner ordering the bollards removed and lawn or curbing installed was written. Chairwoman questioned if any permits were ever pulled or any plans submitted to either building or engineering showing bollards. The commissioner had no knowledge of permits or plans for bollards and building permits are kept forever until microfilm. Board member Williamson questioned if the applicants ever received approval for bollards through plans submitted or amended showing bollards or if the bollards installed last year received a permit. The commissioner could find no plans or perrriits showing bollards ever approved including last year. Member Menser questioned if the bollards were on Randall House property. Mr. Zwick said the bollards are on Randall House property and suggested the Boars Head restaurant had 6 inch curbs which were removed so the Randall House owner installed bollards. Mr. Puzzitiello replied he received verbal approval for the bollards from Mr. Grundy a previous building commissioner more than 30 years ago. Mr. Grendell reviewed with Mr. Conway the different types of plans before the board and who reviews and approves what plans and the fact that after plans are approved engineering sometimes makes changes to approved plans. Mr:, O'Malley advised the board how they should review the appeal and what they could and shouldn't address. Mrs. Diver advised that the board would take no further testimony and would delib?erate. Ms. Williamson thought that if Mr. Puzzitiello received approval for bollards more than 30 years ago then any plans submitted in the 70's should have shown bollards as preexis'ting. Mr. Menser felt that plans submitted for the boards review did not support bollards or landscaping as plans only show 6" curbing. Mr. Kelly said he knew how to read the plans submitted and not one set of plans were accurate and the rest of what had been discussed was all hearsay. Mrs. Diver agreed that building plans do not show grass, only the engineer plan did and :no bollards are shown on any plans. Mrs. Sergi felt that the first set of plans showing approval should be enforced which showed 6" curbing only and did not include bollards or landscaping. The applicant would need to submit a request for a change of plans to the city as the liaa'rd could not approve plans. Mrs. Diver asked if there were codes which govern bollards. Mr. Conway answered there were no code specifically for bollards however there are codes which state you can not alter approved plans. Mr. O'Malley advised the board they could amend the commissioner's order if they chose and request order of findings is drafted and submitted for approyal, Nancy Sergi moved, seconded by Maureen Diver, to afflrm the building commissioners order; with respect to the removal of the bollards and installation of 6" curbing consistent with the approved site plan dated May 13, 1975 and reverse the building commissioners order,for a 10' strip of grass installed from right-of-way to east property line all of which pertains to Randall House Properties of 4701-4763 Great Northern Blvd. The approval is subject to findings being drafted and submitted for approval. Which was unanimously approved 5-0. 3