Loading...
02-25-1981 ~ " ~ ~ u u CITY OF EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING __________~!~E~~EX_~~~_l2~l________ Chairman Louise Martin reconvened the Public Hearing from February 19. 1981 at 7:00 P.M. 1n the Edgewater City Hall. ROLL CALL Mrs. Martin Mr. Sloan Mr. Lupinek Mrs. Walker Mrs. Curry Present Present Present Present Present -New member welcomed to board Pilch Site Plan There was discussion with Mr. pilch as to whether he revised his plans after the last meeting with the board. He explained to the board that he felt that adding more parking spaces to his complex would only add to the problem that they were trying to alleviate, which is traffic congestion in the area. Mr. Lupinek reiterated his feelings about the parking situation. Mr. Sloan suggested perhaps putting in a ten foot shell parking area along the roadway. There was discussion about backing out on the street, and this type of parking might solve that problem. Mr. pilch spoke in length to the board about the complex as pro- posed. He explained that the problem in the area is the school traffic and that is going to get worse whether this complex goes up or not. He added that the City had the opportunity to take care of this by agreeing to a road going through to Turgot Ave. He does not feel that he should be penalized for something that there could have been a solution to. At this time Mayor Christy was given the floor. He stated for the records that no prior agreements were made in regards to a road. The land belongs to the City for recreational purposes for the school children. He feels that the facts should be straight before stating them publicly. Mrs. Walker stated that she would rather go in, than a business or small factory. would certainly be worse in that case. see a complex like this The traffic problem There was discussion about all the land behind the proposed complex. Mr. Pilch again explained to the board that this was set back further prior to being reviewed by the Zoning Board. It was the Zoning Board's recommendation that there be a buffer area left between the buildings and the railroad tracks. Attorney Henderson was given the floor. He stated that he is concerned about the legality of the decision that will be made by this board. He stated that the board should go over the criteria and that they have the authority to grant a special exception with conditions. He went on to explain that the board has the choice of denying the special exception, approving the special exception or approving the special exception with conditions attached. .. u (.) .. There was more discussion about the parking situation. Mrs. Curry was asked her feelings about this project. She stated that she feels this is a favorable project compared to what could automatically go in this district without the board having the opportunity to control it. Mr. Lupinek reminded the board of the previous action taken by the Zoning Board in regard to the rezoning of this area. Mrs. Walker made a motion to grant Mr. pilch the special exception and allow him to build the duplexes in this B-3 zoned area, being seconded by Mrs. Curry. Mr. Sloan made a motion to amend the motion toadd that due to the safety problem at the school and the backing up situation, the complex be setback ten more feet and a parking area along the front be put in, being seconded by Mr. Lupinek. This condition was discussed with Mr. Pilch, who stated that he believes he has the room to do this if the board wishes, however he does not feel it will alleviate the problem. Mr. Dan Nolan, Planning Board member, stated that this subject was not brought to the Planning Board, and all site plans should go before that board in order to confirm that it complies with the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Henderson stated that this point should be well taken. The Comprehensive Plan has not been adopted yet, however Sec. 1001.05 regarding applications for special exceptions does clearly state that the Zoning and Planning Boards shall review the application prior to Public Hearing and shall present it's recommendations at the Public Hearing of the Board of Adjustment. He added that his concern is why this was not sent to the Planning Board. He stated that the posture of the board would be to vote on the subsidiary motion, then go back to the main motion and whether it is pro or con, it will have to be amended again to refer the matter to the Planning Board prior to going to the Council. Upon roll call vote on the amended motion to grant the special exception and due to the safety problem with the school children in the area that the complex be setback ten feet farther with parking in the front made available, the motion DID NOT CARRY, 2-3, Mrs. Walker, Mrs. Curry and Mrs. Martin voting NO. Attorney Henderson stated that now, a motion needs to be made to grant or deny the special exception, if grant the special exception, then it should be subject to approval by the Planning Board. This recommendation should be addressed to the Council. Mrs. Walker made the motion, being seconded by Mr. Lupinek. Upon roll call vote, the motion CARRIED, 4-1. Mr. Sloan voting NO. There was more discussion at this time with Mr. Nolan and Mr. pilch. Attorney Henderson stated that from reading the minutes of the previous meeting, he understands that the board members did in fact go over the criteria for granting special exceptions, however he feels that this should be done again at this meeting. The Clerk read into the records each of the criteria as set forth in Sec. 903.00 Granting Special Exceptions. -2- Board of Adjustments Feb. 25,1981 . u o a. The use requested is listed among the special exceptions 1n the district for which application is made. It was the concensus of the entire board that this provision is fulfilled. b. The requested use will not impair the character of the surrounding or adjoining districts, nor be detrimental to the public health, morals or welfare. It was the feelings of the majority of the board that this pro- vision is fulfilled. Mr. Sloan and Mr. Lupinek both felt that this is detrimental to the public health and welfare. c. The requested use will be in conformity with the land use plan. The comprehensive plan has not actually been adopted yet. d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation 'and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. It was the concensus of the entire board that this provision is fulfilled. e. The proposed use will not increase traffic congestion. It was the concensus that this would increase traffic. Attorney Henderson stated that the board has to make a deter- mination on each of these matters in regard to all cases. In this particular matter the board has already made this deter- mination and has decided that the special exception is acceptable provided that it receives the approval of the Planning Board. Mr. Lupinek stated that he would like to be excused from the rest of the meeting, however he would like to ask the attorney about the board members going out and reviewing the properties together. He stated that he understands that the board members are not to discuss which way they would vote He asked if this is a violation of the Sunshine Law or not? Attorney Henderson stated that this is a violation of the Sunshine Law. He passed out a memo regarding this law, public records and financial disclosure. Mr. Lupinek explained that sometimes the members have a measure- ment to make, to see if the dimensions given to the board are correct. He added that in the past the board members have all gone to the sites and reviewed it. Attorney Henderson stated that any two board members are not to telephone each other or go out to the different sites. The legislature of the State has set this up and they are not going to make any exceptions to the ruling. Mr. Lupinek stated that in the past years, when this was done, we as a board came up with some good decisions. He added that because of this, he would like to hand in his resignation. He stated that you can't seem to get any reason for this. Attorney Henderson tried to explain what could take place. Mr. Pendleton was given the floor. He asked if this board could convene a meeting and then go out to review the areas. Attorney Henderson stated that this could be done. public notification could be made, minutes could be this would comply with the law. There are specific that have to be complied with. The proper taken and procedures -3- Board of Adjustments Feb. 25,1981 u (.) Mr. Lupinek stated that he would still let his resignation stand. At this time Mr. Lupinek excused himself from the meeting. Attorney Henderson stated that in addition to the Sunshine Law, this board also has to comply with the financial disclosure law. The board members are obligated to comply with this law also. Mrs. Curry made a motion to adjourn, being seconded by Mrs. Walker. Upon roll call, the motion CARRIED 4-0. REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Mrs. Martin Mr. Sloan Mrs. Walker Mrs. Curry Present Present Present Present PURPOSE Mrs. Martin stated the purpose of this hearing is to consider the applications for variances from Raymond Norton, 1013 Fernald Street, Floyd Baker, 401 Erskine Drive and Earl White 210 North Riverside Drive. Mrs. Martin asked the board members if they reviewed the sites. Everyone stated that they did, Mr. Sloan stated that he is not sure that he viewed the correct lot on Riverside Drive. There was quite a bit of discussion in regard to this property not being properly posted. Raymond Norton variance request Mr. Norton is requesting a 21 foot front setback variance and a one foot side setback variance in order to build a carport on his property at 1013 Fernald Street. Mr. Norton was given the floor and answered several questions from the board members. The board went over each of the criteria set in Section 904.01 Criteria for granting a variance and decided that each provision was met: a. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the appli- cant's land, structure or building and do not generally apply to the neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same dis- trict or vicinity. b. Strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights commonly applicable to other properties in the same district, or vicinity. c. The special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. -4- Board of Adjustments Feb. 25, 1981 ~ u e. That granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Mr. Sloan asked Mr. Norton about the special circumstances and conditions in this case. Mr. Norton discusssed the location of the trees on his lot, having a carport to keep his car under would keep the pollen, etc. off his car. There was discussion about another carport being allowed in the area. Mr. Sloan explained that this can not be part of their decision. After reveiwing each provision individually, Mrs. Walker made a motion to grant Mr. Norton a 21 foot front setback variance and a one foot side setback variance in order to build a carport on his property at 1013 Fernald Street, being seconded by Mr. Sloan. Upon roll call vote the motion CARRIED 4-0. It was stated to Mr. Norton that this will be sent to the City Council for final approval this Monday night. Kl~y~~ak~E_~~Eian~~_E~~~~!_ Mr. Baker is requesting an eight foot rear setback variance in order to build a screen enclosure on the back of their house at 401 Erskine Drive. Mr.Grnyrek spoke to the board as .abutting neighbors who have no objects to this enclosure. The board went over each of the criteria set ~n Section 904.01: a. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the applicant's land, structure or building and do not generally apply to the neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district or vicinity. b. Strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights commonly applicable to other properties in the same district. c. The special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Sloan asked if this house was built by the Bakers or did they buy it. Mr. Baker stated that the house was purchased, not built for them. d. That granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. e. That granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege, that is denied by this ordinance to lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. grant of other Mr. Sloan made a motion to allow Mr. Baker to enclose his screened porch, being seconded by Mrs. Curry. There was discussion at this time with Mr. pilch about the definitions of hardship and the granting of these variances -5- Board of Adjustment Feb. 25,1981 u u Attorney Henderson stated that the rules and procedures are all properly laid out in the board's By-baws, which we will be discussing later in this meeting. Upon roll call vote, the motion CARRIED 4-0. It was explained to Mr. Baker that this will be sent to the City Council for final approval at the meeting Monday night. Ea!l-~_~hi~~~Ei~~~_req~~~!_ Mr. White is requesting a variance on that part of their property lying east of Riverside Drive in order to build a house on a 75' front instead of the 100' which is required. Mr. White addressed the board. He stated that he was also a little confused as to why the sign was posted on the west side of Riverside Drive. Mr. Sloan stated that the public was not properly notified. Mr. White explained that he does not wish to build at this time, he wishes to obtain permission to call this a buildable lot, so that they can sell it accordingly. Mr. Sloan made a motion to table this until it ~s properly posted, being seconded by Mrs. Walker. Attorney Henderson stated that the problem with the posting has been brought to the Council's attention and an ordinance is pending at the present time to take care of this. Mr. Pilch spoke to the board that he was once held up because of this problem. He does not feel that the applicants should be penalized, when board members did not try to rectify the situation when they went looking for the parcel and could not find it posted. It is not fair to the individuals when the City did not follow through with their responsibilities. Mayor Christy reiterated that this has been explained by the City Attorney. There is a time element involved and it is being taken care of. There was more discussion about this among the board members and the Mayor. Attorney Henderson spoke to the board and the applicant in regard to this case. He asked if this board in the past has ever created a variance on half of a parcel? He would not like to see the board set a precedence without being fully aware of the ramifications He asked if he could have more time to study this further. Upon roll call vote, the motion to table this case CARRIED 4-0. Mrs. Walker made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing, being seconded by Mrs. Curry. The motion CARRIED 4-0. -6- Board of Adjustment Feb. 25, 1981 '-> (J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Mrs. Martin Mr. Sloan Mrs. l.Jalker Mrs. Curry Present Present Present Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Walker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular meeting held January 28, 1981, being seconded by Mrs. Curry. Upon roll call vote the motion CARRIED 3-1. Mr. Sloan voting NO. COMMUNICATIONS The Clerk read a memo from the Board of Adjustment to the City Council recommending a variance to Mr. Harvey Petersen to allow him to construct a garage on his property. Resolution No. 8l-R-20 granted the variance to Mr. Petersen. The Clerk read a memo from the Board of Adjustment to the City Council in regard to the problem the board is having with getting properties posted. The excerpt from the Council minutes explained that an ordinance is being drawn up to designate the property owner involved to post a regulation sign for site plans, variances and appeal cases. The Clerk read a letter written from the City Clerk to Mrs. Lois Kane, former board member. OLD BUSINESS The Clerk read the last communications received by Mr. Murphy, Building Official in regard to the complaint of Mr. Wharton. This letter explained that the remodeling done at the home in question was not done for rental purposes. Mr. Murphy was satis- fied with the explanation. It was explained that Mr. Wharton requested this be put on the agenda. He was not present at the meeting. ~~~i~~~!_~l=~~!~ At this time the By-Laws were read into the records by the Clerk. There were a few changes made, after discussion with the City Attorney. These By-Laws are to be redrafted and put on the agenda for the next board meeting. Attorney Henderson stated that the board chairman should report to the Council that there is a vacancy. State Statutes read that the Council shall appoint someone to fill any vacancy on the board within thirty days. Attorney Henderson stated that he has received an application in the nature of an appeal. He brought the board up to date about the City Council's decision to ban building of two story houses on the east side of Riverside Drive. He added that at the time this decision was made, he informed the Council that he had a legal concern about individuals who already owned p~operty and had their permits taken care of and had all intentions of building a two story home. He felt that a hardship was created for them by the City, and he suggested to the Council that some type of provision be made, or the City would be liable for some very large suits. -7- ~n. of Adiusrment 2-25-81 r o Q This particular appeal case is of this nature. Mr. Murphy refused to issue a building permit to a Mr. Ed Hall because he thought the Council's decision was in effect at the time Mr. Hall requested the permit, when in fact, this had to be done by ordinance, and was not passed until after Mr. Hall's request. Attorney Henderson asked what the board's wishes were? He added that perhaps this could be added for the next board meeting. It was decided that this would be reviewed by the attorney and set on the agenda for the next board meeting, if necessary. BOARD COMMENTS None Attorney Henderson made a statement to the board that he is attending all of the boards' meetings, and brow beating on the Sunshine Law and Financial Disclosure, because apparently there has been some misconceptions of the law in the past. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Sloan made a motion to adjourn, being seconded by Mrs. Walker. Meeting adjourned. ~i~~!~~_~~E~i!!~~_EZ~ Debbie Sigler ----Board-Secretary-------------. -8- Board of Adjustments Feb. 25, 1981