Loading...
01-15-1985 Special , Q o CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments January 15, 1985 Minutes Mr. Garthwaite, Chairman, called the special meeting to order at 7 p.m. at the Shuffleboard Clubhouse. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Garthwaite, Mrs. Martin, Mrs. Murphy, Messrs. Newell, Roush, Savini and Moran. Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary, and one member of the press. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Garthwaite asked the Board members to refer to the December 31st letter from William Cichewicz to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Garthwaite informed the members that he received a notice this morning to meet with the City Attorney concerning this case, which he did at 4:50 p.m. He has advised that of the four items listed in the letter the Board may only consider number 1, "To obtain clarification of possible infractions to a variance issured by your board on 3/8/84 to Mr. Lloyd Van Winkle at the property located at 101 South Ridgewood Avenue." Mr. Cichewicz asked if the City Attorney had made any recommendations with regard to the other three items as far as where to direct them for correction. Responding to this question, Mr. Garthwaite said item 2 concerning possible non-feasance of Mr. Fischer should be directed to the City Council. Item 3 would also go to the Council. This is pertaining to the issuance of city licenses in direct contradiction to one another. Number 4 is a matter for which Mr. Cichewicz should contact his own attorney. This item contends that the fence permit issued by the City is prohibited by the Code. Mr. Garthwaite solicited the advice of the members as to whether item 1 should be reviewed by them. Mr. Newell asked that the complaint on the variance be made clear. Mr. Cichewicz referred the members to the minutes of the March 8, 1984 meeting, at which the variance request of Mr. Lloyd Van Winkle was con- sidered, specifically referring to the 4th paragraph wherein Dr. Christensen refers to the bays and Mr. Van Winkle "said that the bays are mostly for covered parking spaces. There will be a minimal amount of work done there." He asked the members to look at the print submitted which indicated the parking spaces. Mr. Cichewicz contends that Mr. Van Winkle as done every- thing but use this for parking, using it every day for repair or working on vehic~es. He stated also that there are no stalls as indicated except in the front of the building. Mr. Newell asked if the doctor has any complaints about what Mr. Van Winkle has done. Mr. Cichewicz stated that the doctor did sign the original petition. He said that the original petition pertained to the "Personal Touch" as well as the variance. Mrs. Martin asked if part of the problem was the lack of parking spaces and Mr. Cichewicz responded that it is the reason for it. He has indicated areas for parking which he is using and the parking doesn't exist. Mrs. Murphy asked if you have three or four businesses operating and the code calls for so many parking spaces for a business, does it add up. Mr. Garthwaite said that if a business calls for so many parking spaces, that is what he needs. There is no swapping back and forth of spaces. That is definitely in the code. He explained that the plan showing the parking spaces was not submitted to the Board of Adjustments. This went to the Planning Board. Commenting on the one location on the plan indicating parking and driveway, Mr. Garthwaite said he thought the parking should be striFf' and marked for parking, and that it could not be used for a driveway. Mr. Cichewicz said he thought the variance was granted to allow the driveway to be narrower than the code requires. He doesn't know how this could be used for a driveway and parking 1 as well. ,. ,. o u Mr. Garthwaite suggested that they first determine how many work bays there are shown for U. S. Auto Electric, and then how many parking spaces are needed. It was his opinion that there are five work bays, and it is a service business. Mrs. Van Winkle was present in the audience and said that they sell anything which is pertaining to a car's electrical system. Mrs. Murphy wondered why they had to have two licenses. It was noted that the one license is for retail sales. Mr. Cichewicz said that in his opinion they have received two licenses, one to operate a merchant's license, retail and the other is to do machinery repair, and not to exceed three persons. Each business requires a certain number of spaces. Mr. Garthwaite said that he may be right but he would take it that one or the other should be picked by the City to determine how many spaces he needs. He didn't see how you could say that, the man has 20,000 feet under roof, and he has 7 bays, therefore he would need 31 parking spaces. There was further discussion on this point between Mr. Cichewicz and Mr. Garthwaite. Mr. Cichewicz said that if he is operating two business, who determines which one you don't count. Mr. Garthwaite pointed out that you are talking about a business that has been there. If it was built today you would have to move back, such as the new building down the street, but that is a problem we have with parking in buildings such as this. Mr. Cichewicz said the problem is that he has rented out to businesses which require additional parking. Mrs. Martin pointed out that if you have automobile service repair you are bound to have storage of parts on the property which would not make two separate entities. Mr. Garthwaite reminded everyone present that there is only so much authority that this Board has and they must be careful not to overstep this and not cause grief to any party. He said that what they are trying to do now is to determine how much parking is needed there. Mr. Newell said that he felt this should be a Council decision, because when the Board of Adjustments approved the variance there was nothing wrong with it then. Mr. Garthwaite noted that the Board gave a variance for the sunroof, the driveway with conditions of the curb and plantings and he complied with the conditions. Mr. Newell said that this variance has nothing to do with his getting the other licenses. Mr. Savini said that the Board granted it in good faith with the understanding that he would park completed automobiles in the back and work in the bays (indicating same on the plan) . Mr. Garthwaite said that this Board could make a ruling that this is not something for the Board of Adjustments to consider and that it should go before the Code Enforcement Board. Mrs. Martin reiterated that what the Board approved has nothing to do with the events that followed. Mr. Cichewicz said that he understood that they passed the variance based on what was presented to them. Now he has altered what he said was the purpose of the variance. Mrs. Martin said that it was a pure and simple variance approval. What he did after that and what was approved after that has nothing to do with the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Garthwaite said that this would probably be a case which is better heard by the Code Enforcement Board, which, if they find there is a problem, can level fines or make recommendations. The secretary noted that the Code Enforce- ment Board can only hear a case which comes to them through the Code Enforce- ment officer or the City Council. Mr. Cichewicz asked the Board for their suggestion as to what avenue he should follow. Mr. Garthwaite said that they have not made a determination and cannot say that the Code Enforcement Official is not performing his duties as assigned by the Council. But, he said that if a complaint has been taken to him and he feels he has not gotten proper response, his chain Board of Adjustments January 15, 1985 - 2 - o o of command would probably be to the City Clerk/Administrator. If he receives no response from her he should petition the Councilor go to his attorney. There was further discussion about what the Board granted and the con- ditions which were attached to the approval. It was pointed out that with the information which the Board had they could not foresee any problems. Mr. Cichewicz said that he had indicated parking on the plan where there is no parking. Mrs. Martin said that the Board cannot get involved with what he has done after their approval. Mrs. Murphy referred to the copies of the licenses and noted that they were issued prior to the granting of the variance. Mr. Newell said that the Personal Touch business was not in the building in which it is now located. Mr. Garthwaite said that the Board could either continue the hearing to get more answers, or decide not to hear it and have it sent to the Council. This Board does not have the authority to send it to the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Cichewicz said that the members have said that everything is correct but he shows the areas where he is working on cars as working bays to be parking areas. It was determined again that the members had not received a copy of the plan which shows the parking area. This had gone to the Planning Board. Mr. Garthwaite said that they had received the plat, which shows the lot lines, dimensions to the right of ways, etc., which is the Board's basic concern. He said that normally the Board does not consider the parking when considering the request for a variance. It was noted that there is a letter in the file from the Planning Board approving the site plan. Mrs. Murphy said she thinks that it goes back to the issuance of the license. Mr. Garthwaite felt that it is something that has to go before the Council for correction of administrative actions within the City. Mrs. Martin pointed out that the Board of Adjustments cannot police every case which comes before them to see if their directions have been carried out. That is not its job. Mrs. Murphy said she feels the burden of proof is with the person who issued the license, because they should have ascertained that this area was suitable for the licenses. Mrs. Martin agreed and added that the person issuing the licence should have investigated as far as breaking down and renting out parts of the property before issuing the license. Mr. Cichewicz said that the licenses which the City issues has an area at the bottom that requires the approval of the Building Official that it meets all the Code. He repeated that the Building Official will not allow this to go before the Code Enforcement Board. That is why he has corne to the Board of Adjustments, and asked the next step. Mr. Garthwaite told the members that at this time the City now has two people in the Building Official's office who can go out and take a look at these sites, but at the time of the issuance of the variance it did not have two people. He said that hopefully in the future there will be a screening done at licensing. Mrs. Murphy asked who issued the licenses and Mr. Garthwaite responded that it was the Deputy City Clerk. Mrs. Murphy said that then the Building Official was not involved. Mr. Cichewicz repeated.that the form says that it must be checked to see that it meets all the Code by the Building Official. The secretary told the members that she was advised today that the new policy of the occupational licenses going to the Building office just started in August. Mrs. Murphy repeated that then the person who has been issuing the licenses had some responsi- bility that has been taken away from them. (Difficult to hear other comments here as several people are talking at one time.) Mr. Cichewicz suggested that in the future when the Board reviews varianc~that they get in touch with the Building Official to check that the variance they are granting will comply with Code. The Chairman advised that the Building Official receives a letter advising that the variance has been granted and listing the conditions. With the policy as it is now it probably would have been caught in this case. Mrs. Bennington, in the audience, commented reo the statement about the occupational licenses going to the Building Official since August, saying Board of Adjustments January 15, 1985 - 3 - Q Q that it was the policy as long as she was in office that whenever there was a question on an occupational license as to the Code it went to the Building Official. He was told to check it. Mrs. Wadsworth knew that it was supposed to be because there have been problems reoccuring for several years. Mr. Garthwaite said, you mean if there was any question in her mind, and Mrs. Bennington said that is right. Mrs. Bennington also noted that the ordinance that requires all this to go to the Building Official before licenses are issued has been in effect since 1974. Mrs. Murphy asked if there wouldn't be a record of how many licenses have been issued for a certain location. Mr. Garthwaite said that this Board is not in a position to point a finger and find fault. Something like that should be with the Council. Mr. George Haggerman, manager of Personal Touch, was in the audience and said that the violations that have been brought before the Board and those for which they have received certified letters on have been brought up to standards, and asked if the Board members have checked to see that this is true. He said that Mr. Dave Jones, the Assistant Code Enforcement Officer, came down and checked to see that everything was done properly. He said that they got a letter listing 11 different violations against their organization alone which they have taken the time to correct. Mr. Garth- waite explained that the Board had agreed at the beginning of the meeting to limit discussion to the variance granted by the Board to Mr. Van Winkle. He said that they are aware that a number of the violations which were pointed out by the Building Official have been corrected. Mr. Garthwaite cautioned the Board to limit their discussion to the variance. Licenses are not in the Board's domain and it should not point fingers. The Chairman expressed the opinion that this matter should not be heard by the Board of Adjustments. He said that he does not see any way for the complainant to go before the Code Enforcement Board except through the Council. Mrs. Murphy asked if the Board should make a finding that the conditions of the variance which the Board granted have been met. Mr. Garthwaite said he feels the Board should not have to make any recommendation on that because it was done as it was approved. Mr. Newell moved that the letter from Mr. Cichewicz not be considered by the Board of Adjustments and that he should go to the City Council if he so desires. Mr. Moran:seconded the motibn. Mrs. Murphy said that she still feels that the Board did not determine that there were an~ infractions to the variance issued by the Board, if he asked us to speak to that. Mr. Garthwaite responded that the motion is saying that the Board is not con- sidering any points of the letter. Mrs. Murphy said that she thought they were supposed to consider the one. Mr. Garthwaite said that the Board does not have to. Mrs. Murphy asked if that is what the attorney recommended. Mr. Garthwaite explained that he recommended that they definitely not touch items 2, 3 or 4. They could talk about item #1 if they wished, but they did not have to. Mrs. Murphy said that she did not understand that. The motion CARRIED 7-0. Mr. Cichewicz said now he knows where he is supposed to take it and thanked the Board members for their time. Mr. Savini moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Martin. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Minutes prepared by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustments January 15, 1985 - 4 -