Loading...
03-28-1984 Special ,. w ~ CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments March 28, 1984 - Special Meeting Minutes In the absence of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Newell motioned to nominate Mr. Wetzel Acting Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Murphy and unanimously CARRIED. Acting Chairman Wetzel called the special meeting to order at 7:26 p.m. in the Shuffleboard Clubhouse. ROLL CALL Members present: Mrs. Murphy, Messrs. Wetzel, Newell, Roush and Savini. Excused: Mr. Garthwaite. Absent: Mrs. Martin. Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary, and one member of the press. NEW BUSINESS Earl Wallace for Craig Mitchell and Roy Aikens - requesting a Special Excep- tion for a used car sales to be located on .19 acres of land between The Guest House and Miss Peggy's Day Care on North Riverside Drive. Proper advertising, posting of the property and notification of abutting property owners were established. Mr. Earl Wallace was present to explain the proposal. He stated that the applicants have an existing business just south of the pilch complex in the B-3 zone on U. S. 1. The property has been sold in the past 30 days and Mr. Aikens and Mr. Mitchell have been asked to leave the first of April. This is the reason for relocating the business which has already passed through the Board of Adjustments with a special exception. He stated that in the zoning book in B-3 used car lots are required to have a special exception. New car dealerships are a permitted use. He stated that in his opinion there is a slight override in the uses in the Ordinance, but that problem will take time to be ironed out, because they are an accessory of each of the types of uses. The applicants are purchasing the property. Mr. Wallace noted that with the zoning requirements as they are it permits updating of existing structures and businesses over a period of time so that they are more in line with the zoning ordinance. ~ Mr. Wallace said that the plans call for a 176 square foot office area, another area where they prepare the cars and clean them, and a storage shed. There is a little over 600 square feet in the total area - utilizing about 8 per cent of the land area, which is .19 acres. They have met all the setbacks and other criteria. Mr. Wallace said that they feel it is just a procedure - talking with the City Attorney - that it should be nothing but a procedure due to the accessory uses are very near, and they are licensed for this area. The way the ordinance intent is now, you can be in business but you still go through the procedures and this is what they are doing. Mr. Roush asked if they had as much space as they had across the road; Mr. Wallace replied that this location is more restrictive, because now they must indicate how the display areas will be. Mr. Wallace said that some of the trees must be removed, but they have more than enough to meet the 25 per cent crown coverage in ten years required by the tree ordinance. Mr. Wallace said that the swales shown meet the City's requirement~ for water retention. It was pointed out that there will be four display areas for the cars and two parking spaces for the owners. Mr. Newell asked about the driveway - Mr. Wallace replied that it is a 24 foot driveway. Mr. Wallace said that drawings for the building were submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. Newell said he felt with just four spaces for car display it was small for a used car lot. Mr. Newell was concerned that he might be doing car repairs there; Mr. Wallace said it would be the same type of operation as at his present location. Mr. Wallace said there will be a fence on the north side and along the back and a planted buffer to the south going back 40 feet. Mrs. Murphy questioned the notation on the application which states that this 'XJ. - m-., f:Ud~ ~ a-~ t;}vv" T~ J,14~~ ~ ~:_... ~ '-f~t.ff ~~....... ~, ~~ ~~ Pa-p... I '--h- ~-;2-();8:I~ }T 'f11~/Kf ~~ ~ is a single lot of record and questioned why there was not a copy of the appropriate deed, abstract or tax bill to document this status. Mr. Wallace said that the parcel number is shown on the application. Upon questioning by Mrs. Murphy, he stated that the gentlemen have already bought the property. Mrs. Murphy asked if he had a written statement from the City Attorney. Mr. Wallace said that he had asked the Planning secretary and Mrs. Kinsey to make a note to the City Attorney asking for a determination, because they are accessory uses, even though it defines a used car lot situation as a special exception, but a car dealership is a permitted use. You can't have one without the other, he stated. Mrs. Murphy said she was concerned about Mr. Wallace being a go-between between the Board and the City Attorney and telling the Board what the City Attorney is saying. She stated that it appears unorthodox. Mr. Wallace said he asked for a definition to see if they had to go for a special exception. He was trying to find if it was a needed thing. Mrs. Murphy said she felt that the City Attorney worked for the Council. Mrs. Murphy said she was also concerned about the size of the lot. It is very small. Mrs. Murphy said she was very sympathetic with the gentlemen whose business was sold, but the special exception will pertain to this lot from now on out. If he sells it the next person may have a different way of operating it. Mr. Wallace pointed out that this structure could become a retail situation. It could become anything you want to call it that is permitted in B-3. Mrs. Murphy asked if the display areas are for cars to be sold or for cus- tomers. Mr. Wallace said he did not know how they operate - they hold a retail and a wholesale license. The entrance and exit driveway was also discussed. Mrs. Murphy asked if the D.G.T. had been contacted and referred to another situation which had come before the Board. Mr. Wallace said that in that case the island was near the driveway entrance and exit - the D.G.T. was concerned about accidents in that situation. There is a crossover in front of the property being considered now. Mrs. Murphy said that if the special exception is granted it will be here forever. Mr. Wallace said that the usage would not have to stay the same. The man may go to a larger lot. Mrs.. Murphy feared that someone else could then come in and run another used car lot. Mr. Wallace said that they would have to come back through - this is one of the governing factors the Code has built in. Mr. Wetzel said he was concerned about the trees; Mr. Wallace said they had more than enough to meet the Code. Mrs. Mildred Susac was present to speak about the proposal. She stated that she owns The Guest House; she wouldn't have an objection to a business coming in there but she did not think this is one which should be allowed because she thinks the lot is too small, and this is not an area for this type of business. She fears that it. will deteriorate and begin to look like a junk yard. She is concerned that they will decide that it is too small and they will want to sell it. She said that we all need to be very careful about what we do with the land in Edgewater. She is also concerned about the trees and the ecology. She stated that this is a use that should not be - it is simply too small for a used car lot. Mr. Wetzel asked if there would be more than six cars at one time. Mr. Wallace said that his lot will not allow it; he is much more restricted. Mrs. Susac said she did not see how it can be a profitable used car business with just three or four cars on it. Mr. Savini commented that a lot of his busi- ness is wholesale. There was additional discussion about the planted buffer on the south side. Mrs. Murphy asked again about the previous statement of Mr. Wallace that if this used car lot moved or went out of business the special exception would be voided. Mr. Newell said that is what he thought. The secretary said that she did not believe that is true. The special exception would go to the new owner. Mr. Wetzel said that the special exception goes to the land. 2 - Board of Adjustments March 28, 1984 w w Mrs. Murphy said that is what she thought. After this Board approves it as a special exception for a used car lot, it will remain eligible for a used car lot. Mr. Wallace said it is his understanding they are asking for a special exception for Mr. Aikens and Mr. Mitchell as a used car loti that is for licensing purposes. The structure will comply totally with the ordinance. Whether it is a used car lot down the line or not, anybody who goes for an occupational license with the City must go through this Board. They have rewritten it for that purpose, just for this type of situation. That's as he understands it, he stated. Mrs. Murphy said they should have an attorney there, because she is under the impression that once this special exception is given the okay of the Board that it is there. It is just as legal as any other zoning. Mr. Savini said that this is restricting this particular car lot to six spaces. If another car lot came in he felt it would have to stay at six spaces. Mrs. Murphy said she did not see that they are restricted to six spaces. She asked if they grant this if they are going to attach a restriction on it that they can only park six cars. Mr. Savini commented that he has seen the cars from the applicant's present business and they are always nice looking, and he runs a good operation. Mr. Roush asked again about the plantings in the buffer to the south. Mr. Wallace said the ordinance calls for them to be 36-inches high; the plan indicates the buffer to go back 40 feet. Mrs. Murphy pointed out that there is no criteria for lot size for a car lot. She noted that any lot in the B-3 zone with 8,000 square feet could be used for a used car lot. Mr. Roush motioned that the special exception be granted providing that they put a buffer all the way back on the south side from front to back, at least three feet high. Mr. Savini seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED 4-1. Mrs. Murphy voted No. A. E. Matthews - requesting a five foot variance to the side setback and approximately 13 foot variance to the rear setback to construct a garage at 129 -Lamont Street. It was determined that the property was posted, advertised and all abutting property owners notified in accordance with the requirements of the Code. Mr. Matthews was present to explain his request. He stated that the existing garage is 2'7" from the east property line and 6'3" from the rear lot line. To save two persimmon trees which are located about 33 feet west of the property line he asked to change his request to 3 feet instead of the 5 feet. He would like to keep the rear setback at its present location of 6'3". Mr. Wetzel pointed out that his original request was for a 5 foot variance and that is the way it was advertised. If the garage is built at 30' x 30' he would lose the trees. The existing building will be torn down. Mr. Roush noted that if the garage is built at three feet from the side yard, the two-foot overhang would let water run off onto the neighbor's yard. Mrs. Murphy asked why, if he is going to completely replace the garage, it cannot be built to meet code - 20 feet from the rear and 10 feet from the side. He will have to give up the persimmon trees anyway with a 5-foot setback. Mr. Matthews said the 20 feet in back would just be a catch-all for junk. He stated also that there is a cement floor already in there. If it is brought up 20 feet it will bring it up in front of the neighbor's existing building on the east. Mr. Wes Haughwout, the neighbor to the east, was present in the audience and asked what would be the problem with granting a variance for Mr. Matthews to put up a building no closer than where the existing building sets. Mr. Newell commented that Mr. Matthews has asked for a five-foot - 3 - Board of Adjustments March 28, 1984 w ., w side variance. Mr. Haughwout stated that if he stays at the 2'8" setback he would not lose his persimmon trees. Rev. Hardin was also present in the audience and said that he and his wife would like to see the Board grant Mr. Matthews' request. Mr. Newell motioned to approve a 14-foot variance to the rear setback and a 5-foot variance to the side setback for Mr. Matthews. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roush and CARRIED 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor - 4 - \ Board of Adjustments March 28, 1984 - Special Mtg.