Laserfiche WebLink
?w <br />? <br />To: Council <br />From: Ed Boyle <br />Subject: Ordinance 96-99 <br /> <br />July 5, 1996 <br />The above captioned ordinance, sponsored by Council Persons McKay <br />and Musial, is captioned: <br />°AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE <br />ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED OF AN <br />AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VII, SECTION 4(b) OF THE <br />CHARTER, PROHIBITING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br />FROM GRANTING USE VARIANCES, and DECLARING AN <br />EMERGENCY.° <br />This ordinance was presented to and discussed by the Building, Zoning <br />and Development Committee of Council and was passed by the Legislative <br />Branch on July 2, 1996. It was presented to me on July 3, 1996 for signature <br />and enactment or veto. <br />Since then I have taken a great amount of time digesting the contents of <br />this legislation and weighing the factors that must go into my decision. I believe <br />there are very credible arguments from all sides and they have led me to ask <br />myself if this is in fact one isolated issue or a subject that can result in far <br />reaching affects on our government. <br />First, has there been an abuse by any members of any Board of Zoning <br />Appeals or the Board itself related to the granting of use variances? According <br />to the minutes of the July 2, 1996 Council meeting, the ansver is no. At that <br />meeting our Director of Law stated that over the past twenty-three years only two <br />use variances have been granted. In the first instance a company was allowed <br />to continue to conduct business on property zoned residential. The Board of <br />Zoning Appeals granted the variance, without a unanimous vote, primarily on the <br />grounds that there was no adverse impact on residents and the adjacent <br />property may very well be better fit for commercial activities. On the second <br />occasion an indoor youth soccer facility was permitted on property zoned for <br />light industry. Not only did Council agree with this decision but it also took under <br />advisement the idea of making this a permitted use. <br />I have no record of the number of use variance requests that have been <br />made during the same twenty-three years but records do indicate the two <br />decisions cited above were correct and for the benefit of the people of North <br />Olmsted. In short, I see no evidence of abuse.