|
*'.
<br />Counc3,1 Mi;nutes qf 11115/$3
<br />-5-
<br />Mr. Logan moved Council. recess for an indefinite period, the period to be determined
<br />by the President of Council, and further, that the President of_ Council shall at any
<br />paint, at which time he wishes to reconvene, call Council back to the table through
<br />the pounding of the gavel, second hy Mr. McKay. Roll call on motian: Affirmative
<br />vote: Bierman, Lopan, McKay. Negative vote: Petrigac, Saringer, Woerpel. 3 Aye -
<br />3 Nay - Tie vote. President Boehmer cast deciding vote, "yes". 4 Aye - 3 Nay -
<br />Motion carried. Council recessed.
<br />President Boehmer reconvened the Council Meeting at 9:00 P.M. Councilman Wilamosky
<br />is now present.
<br />Under Old Business:
<br />Mr. Woerpel moved that the action taken by the t3oard of Zoning Appeals, at their
<br />regular meeting on September 7, 1983, regarding the parcel of land located at 26035
<br />Lorain Road, is not determinatfve of a setback requirement because existing ordinances,
<br />1125.62 and 1174.02 require a fiftv foot setback from any street line in all property
<br />zoned retail and said ordinances control on this issue, second by Mrs. Petrigac.
<br />Law Director Gareau asked b,y what authority Mr. Voerpel braugtt this ma.tter to Council
<br />when the thirty day period, from the time the ruling was made, had long passed. Mr.
<br />Woerpel replied by being the 2egislative body of_ the City; that the ordinances alreadv
<br />cover the area; basically the ruling that was made was a moot ruling. Law Director
<br />stated that when Council acted, it did not act as a legislative body; it acted as an
<br />administrative body in this capacity. In reviewing the proceedings of the Roard of
<br />Zoning Appeals, Council is administrative and not legislative. Mr. Gareau has advised
<br />Council that the time period in which they could act is long gone.
<br />Law Director also recapved the following events: The issue initially was raised at the
<br />August meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals when the Rini people came before the
<br />Board and asked for a variance. At this hearing, Building Coaanissioner Gundy indicated
<br />that the reason he denied the request for a permit was because he considered this lot
<br />to be a"through lot". At this meeting, the variance was denied. At the September 7th
<br />meeting, it was again on the agenda. Proper notices were sent out, the interested
<br />parties were there; Rini's was there; somebody from Great Northern was there; they were
<br />placed under oath and the matter was again heard. Law Director was asked for his opinion
<br />with respect to whether or not this actually constitubed a"through lot". Law Director
<br />gave his opinion and part of that opinion was based on the fact that the only place you
<br />find the term "through lot" is in the definition section. Also, when you look through
<br />the entire code, it only is alluded to in the residential section, not the comunercial
<br />section. By its very nature, "through" means that you can go from one street to another.
<br />The Board then,by motion, adopted that ruling and held that this was not a"through lot".
<br />That being the case, the typical setback and rear yard requirements of the code apply.
<br />On September 9th, the ruling was forwarded to the Clerk of Council, who distributed
<br />these minutes of the meeting, to a11 Members of Council. Consequently, from the 7th of
<br />September, til the 7th of October, Council, by its own rules established by ordinance,
<br />had the right to review the ruling and set it aside. Council dicl nothing with it for
<br />thirty days. There is a lawsuit pending in this c3se; it is in litigation. The person
<br />who feels grzaved has chosen the forum and the forum is Common Pleas Court. In the
<br />Law Director's opinion, this really has no business coming before this body at this time.
<br />Mr. Woerpel stated that Mr. Gareau indicated that when they determined there was not a
<br />"through lot", then the zoning ordinances in effect, remain j_n eff.ect, and this is
<br />4D precisely the reason for his motion. The motion simply reaffirms the legislative
<br />intent of Council when it, in fact, put into the zoning ordinance, Section 1174.02 with
<br />regard to setback regulations, which says that in a retail business district, the
<br />building setback shall be at least fifty feet from the street. The purpose of the
<br />motion is to simply reaffirm that Council wants that ordinance, passed a long time ago,
<br />to be in affect.
|