Civil War Timeline.

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 28, 2009

Members present: O’Brien, Boehringer, Williams, Mignogna
Also present: Himes, Edwards, Byron, Watterson, Subel, Lannon

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman John O’Brien.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Mr. Boehringer, seconded by Mr. Williams that the minutes of the meeting held February 24, 2009 be approved. Carried. Ayes: Boehringer, Williams, Mignogna. Abstain: O’Brien. Nays: None.

Mr. O’Brien announced that the regularly scheduled meeting to be hold on May 26, 2009 will be rescheduled for June 2, 2009.

PSJS LLC, 9 RIVER STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1137.04 AND 1138.04, YARD AND BUFFER REGULATIONS, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-06-049.

Mr. Himes said the applicant is proposing to put tables and seating in what is the required front yard, 20 feet from the public right-of-way. Our code requires that the 20 foot front yard be set aside for yard area. Certain uses are allowed there by the code, but seating is not one of them. Therefore, they are requesting a variance from that yard requirement.

Mr. Williams said they are not here to present their request. I did have a question that came out of their application regarding the location of the proposed area where they want to put the seating and it principally had to do with safety and the gas meters. So, what I would like to do is have this reviewed for safety purposes regarding those gas meters and the compressor unit on the side of the building. Ben, if you could have the Fire Department do a review of the request then we will take that up at our next meeting.

Mr. O’Brien said we will table this and continue it until next month. Ben, would you mention to them that they also need to have someone here at the meeting? Mr. Himes said yes.

FLESHER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1353.08(b), RIVER BUFFER LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BENTLEYVILLE ROAD AND CHAGRIN BOULEVARD, PERMANENT PARCEL NOs. 932-02-001, 932-02-002, AND 931-26-011. (Continued from the February 24, 2009 meeting.)

Mr. Himes said they have approximately 20.5 acres and almost 13 acres are in Chagrin Falls and 7.5 in Moreland Hills. They are asking for a variance to the River Buffer Ordinance. Our river buffer provides for a 120 foot setback from the river but goes on to state that that buffer shall be extended outward of sensitive areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, and wooded areas that are adjacent to the stream. Therefore, this entire property is covered by that extended river buffer. At the previous meeting when this issue was heard, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report and an economic analysis, which the Board asked the administration to review. The Village hired several consultants to help in that review process and they are here tonight to answer any questions the Board might have. You also asked for an opinion from the Chagrin River Watershed Partners. You have been provided with the reports from EDP, which is the Village’s geotechnical consultant, Berusch Development Partners, who is our real estate consultant, and letters from the Chagrin River Watershed Partners. The subdivision application not only needs to achieve this variance to move forward, but they would also have to go through the planning process; not only here but in Moreland Hills also. Even if granted, this variance they would have to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to any development taking place.

Mr. Byron said this Board is being requested to grant a variance under Section 1353.05 of your Codified Ordinances and there are two determinations which would require you to grant the variance if you found them. One is that the granting of the variance will not result in increased flood heights beyond that which is allowed in Chapter 1353, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, or conflict with any of the factors set forth in subsection (a)(6) hereof, or existing local laws or ordinances, and two, the structure of other development is protected by methods to minimize flood damages. That is a standard that relates to flood hazard mitigation. The river buffer ordinance is subject to that standard because it has been placed in the building code and so that’s going to be your standard of review when you look at this question. It is my understanding that there have been a lot of other issues relating to soils, economics, and other issues. Those really are not issues before the Board. You should be focusing on flood plain issues and concerns related to whether or not there are going to be safety issues either related to home sites or with regard to the roadway. It is my understanding that a public road has been proposed for this area.
Mr. O’Brien asked, Tim Lannon do you want to talk about the question we posed to you about the stability of the soil? Mr. Lannon said we have reviewed the report and we have walked the property. I hired as a sub-consultant, Alan Esser, a Geotechnical Engineer with EDP Consultants, Inc. He has reviewed the developer’s report and he has issued a letter in response, a summary of his review.

Alan Esser said we reviewed the geotechnical report that was done for Flesher and that letter contains a few items that we see as being somewhat deficient in the report and some of the conclusions that were drawn. The report has admittedly been characterized as being preliminary so I think the stage that it is at is a preliminary design stage where they tried to reach the point where they could evaluate the cost of doing what they are proposing to do. We think the cost has been underestimated based on what we typically see with other similar types of slope issues and stabilization issues. There may be various engineering reasons for that. I think very clearly that the slopes there are failing and have failed. I think one thing that isn’t talked about very much is a landslide. The retaining wall that is to the north on Bentleyville Road was put in some time ago. It was put in during a response to a landslide that was affecting the roadway. The structures that are currently on this slope also show evidence of damage and harm from landslides and from the ground moving. There is no question that the existing slopes there are unstable, or marginally stable at best, and if you are going to build a road and build homes on that site you need to be designing those things to provide some measure of safety so that we don’t have a problem in the future. We don’t want to have a future landslide affecting the roadway, the retaining walls, and so forth. As engineers, we would like to see that the future property owners are protected as well. The retaining walls that are proposed are trying to serve double duty as both improving the stability of the slope and retaining the soils above and below the roadway so that we can create a level area to build the road. We think that given what is proposed for the retaining walls, we think that they are probably underestimating what is really going to be required to serve both of those functions. We have had some discussions about possibly even separating functions like improving slop stability and treating the retaining walls as a completely separate issue.

Mr. O’Brien asked, in your opinion, can the hill be stabilized if money were no object? Mr. Esser said yes.

Russell Berusch, from Berusch Development Partners, LLC, gave a brief summary of his report submitted to the Village dated April 23, 2009 and titled River’s Edge Development Proposal. Mr. Williams asked what the certain soft costs missing from the developer’s budget are? Mr. Berusch said examples are marketing and sales, construction period, interest expense or return to the investment/investors, and real estate taxes.

Amy Brennan from the Chagrin River Watershed Partners, gave a brief summary of her letters submitted to the Village dated April 20, 2009 and April 21, 2009 titled River’s Edge Subdivision.
Mr. Williams said there was one other presentation that was just given to us. It was a technical rendering of the project submitted by Curtis Taylor.

Curtis Taylor, 279 Bentleyville Road, summarized his letter, analysis, and 3-D photographs submitted to the Village dated April 23, 2009 titled Preliminary Plan for River’s Edge.

Mr. Markowitz asked Mr. Taylor if he is licensed by the State of Ohio to be an engineer? Mr. Taylor said no, I am not. Mr. Markowitz asked Mr. Taylor if he has any college degree in engineering? Mr. Taylor said no, I am an industrial designer. Mr. Markowitz said, I would certainly object to the admission of his report and I would ask you not to consider it as testimony because you can not consider testimony from someone who is not competent to testify in the area in which they spoke. I would like you to delete, in its entirety, what he stated about his calculations for that site.

Mr. Markowitz asked Mr. Berusch, I know you read Roger Ritley’s report, did you ever get a chance to speak to him before you issued your report? Mr. Berusch said no. Mr. Markowitz asked, did you determine whether or not in his analysis of the current cash value or economic flow, that he had already taken into account the sales and marketing and time delay in selling lots in coming up with his current value? Did you look at his report to see if he already included that in his analysis? Mr. Berusch said yes, I thought his revenue and sell-off period were reasonable. If the lot sale estimates that you presented from Roger had those costs then they were implicit in them, not broken out. I took those costs at face value because I felt it would be reasonably independent of any other such soft costs. Mr. Markowitz said I was confused when you were speaking. When I read your report it didn’t seem like you had deviated from what Mr. Ritley’s conclusions were on the gross revenue over the length of the project and then the current value of that gross revenue. He was at about 2.8 million gross revenue and when you took back the current value and the sales and marketing it was about 2.2. million. Mr. Berusch said yes.

Mr. Markowitz asked Ms. Brennan questions about the additional information she has requested and they were answered. Mr. O’Brien said we want to know where the line is regarding where the plots or homes will be before we give a variance. Mr. Flesher said the flood line? Mr. O’Brien said exactly. What goes before P&Z doesn’t impact us, we want to know what we are granting.

Eric Flickinger said we performed a wetland delineation that had been coordinated with the corps of engineers and other federal and state regulatory agencies to pursue any permitting that we might need to do on this project. We deal with a lot of communities in which buffers are established. It has been my experience that generally, we encounter buffers that do not exceed, or generally do not extend out to the 100 year flood plan. In this case we have a 120 foot buffer which, based on our mapping, does exceed the 120 foot buffer. I would tend to think that there is going to be little actual flooding of the property. There’s no wetlands to be affected by the flooding in the Chagrin Falls area would be encountered because of the 100 year storm.

Mark Recktenwald, of Solar Testing Laboratories, Inc., said we feel that the hillside could be stabilized adequately to construct a roadway to the subdivision that is currently planned. I think any time you look at preliminary data and ask several people to review it you can get several different takes on what may be required to stabilize it. You have to look at it from the standpoint of it is preliminary and when the time comes that a final design is offered additional data will be gathered as to the type of soils we have with more testing than on the preliminary level and additional analysis will be performed. We have worked in concert with Joe Gutoskey to come up with solutions that fit the proposed grading and we would work with the developer to come up with solutions that are economical. It doesn’t mean we are going to do it the cheapest way, we are going to find the alternative that is among the acceptable alternative that fits the grading plan and fits the project budget. With the discussions that we have had with Mr. Gutoskey and Mr. Flesher, we feel that adequate stability can be provided in some form to construct a roadway.

Mr. Williams said the issue has been raised that we don’t know the extent of the instability of that slope and what it could mean to anything down the slope from those areas of instability. The questions has been raised, what does it take to stabilize that slope and how much of it has to be stabilized? That is one of the things that we have been trying to get at so I appreciate your addressing that particular issue. You say you consult with the developer and the owner, the Village has substantial liability associated with the stability of that slope as well because of the roadways that traverse cross the top of it both on West Orange Street and for a short piece of Bentleyville Road that is in Chagrin Falls Village as well. The Village’s liability with regard to the stability of that slope would probably be considered in this as well.

Mr. O’Brien said Mr. Berusch stated, as I read before, that the cost of stabilizing would likely be at least twice that reflected in the budget. I heard you when you said it is preliminary and that you need to know more. Would you like to react to that? Mr. Gutoskey said we did not derive an estimate of construction costs independently of Mr. Flesher’s estimate. That is Mr. Flesher’s area of expertise, in our opinion. So, I really can not respond to Mr. Berusch because I didn’t create any estimates.

Mr. Gutoskey said I would like to step back a little bit and kind of clarify why this is a preliminary design on our part. At the time when we were first retained, there were several different alternatives for roadways entering this site and rather than spending a tremendous amount of money exploring all these different proposed alternate routes, we did a selective number of borings, soil sampling to at some points 80 feet deep within that hillside. That could not be done to an extreme level of detail everywhere across the site and now that a more definite route for the roadway has been chosen, we can concentrate a little more specifically, or focus our intention more, on the proposed plan for the site rater than a couple alternatives that we were looking at initially. We were asked to determine the soil conditions on the site and to come up with some alternatives to stabilizing the hillside to construct a roadway. We were not, at any point, asked to create any budgets or review any budgets. We were merely providing details of features that would be constructed by others and features that would be estimated, the cost would be estimated.

Bob Flesher said with regard to the construction of the retaining wall, we, Mr. Excavator, hired Solar Testing to perform the onsite soils analysis, geotechnical analysis for the property, and in the summary of their report it was a depiction of a caisson supported retaining wall that we utilize to develop a construction cost estimate, which is included in our overall cost estimate that we have presented with Roger Ritley’s economic report. The cost that we identified was independently supported by Neff & Associates, an independent civil engineering department. The cost of the retaining wall that we have estimated is supported by a vendor that we have a regular working relationship with that drills and installs caissons, H-pile, grade beams, and lagging, and the backfill that the excavation contractor, Mr. Excavator, performs on a property. We build a number of caisson, H-pile, lagging retaining walls every year. While Mr. Esser, in his report, would say that he feels that we have underestimated our values on the retaining wall I would argue and say that that is a go to work number. It is not something that I would just do for myself, it is a number that I would bid on a job to work for a general contractor based on the criteria that was established in Solar Testing’s report. Mr. O’Brien asked what Solar Testing shared with him? Mr. Flesher said they shared with us the anticipated depth of the caisson sockets that would need to be installed, the point of location, and how many feet on center the caissons would need to be. I am not certain if they identified the specific diameters but knowing that certain caissons at certain depths we assigned a caisson diameter to that quantity. We used their criteria for the most part for the retaining wall. We know that there are a total of 99 caissons at 6 foot on center and that steel beam of somewhere in the range of 90 pounds per foot would be utilized along with the concrete that goes in the caisson to give it structural integrity and that the exposed area would be built out of some form of wood lagging or precast panel that would also have an engineering value assigned to it for its retention integrity to come up with the value for building that portion of the job.

Mr. Esser said we believe that as this design progresses and gets more detailed the difference in the cost is going to come in and I think they will find that they need a larger diameter than what has been estimated. The length is maybe okay but I think the wall elements are going to be more robust than what has been anticipated so far and that is where the difference in the cost is going to come in, larger diameters, more concrete, and more steel than what is there. Typically cost runs anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 a foot depending on various factors and I think their estimate is about $800 a foot. Even walls scaled down from what is proposed I have seen typical costs of around $1,200 a foot for walls half this size. I think the other issue in the method being used, I think it also determines deflections and for a wall to provide stability to a slope, it has to undergo some deformation and those deformations could be on the scale of several inches. Not only do you need to look at how much steel and concrete is needed but how much displacement is going to occur before this wall can effectively provide strength to stabilize the slope and are those deflections in excess of what would be acceptable and what you might end up with is a wall that leans even though it is doing its job. It may be leaning to an extent that people where people feel uncomfortable with it. You have to look at that issue as well and I think the method that Mark is using allows him to evaluate that aspect. The other issue was that what we have seen so far as far as topography, only for the property that is proposed to be developed, slopes are not so well behaved that they pay attention to property lines and we would suggest, strongly urge them to look at the topography of the entire area. I think one of the sections that was analyzed in particular was kind of bent to follow the shape that is being created rather than really following the most critical part of the slope. You don’t see that until you look at the topography of the property to the north. Flying the site will give us a better sense of what the real topography is. It is very important look at the topography also of the adjacent sites so that the truly critical areas of the slopes can be analyzed.

Roger Ritley said we did do a report on the cash flow that would come out of the project. The report I am handing the Board is an accurate copy of the report. He summarized the report and the flow of funds to the Village and the schools.

A resident of Moreland Hills, Greentree Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.

Larry Murray, 243 High Street, suggested that the revenues versus costs be studied further.

Mr. Markowitz said there were some statements that were made by people about the roadway on Bentleyville slipping and also about the high number of accidents that have occurred on Bentleyville Road as it meets West Orange Street so we made two public records requests. We requested from the Chagrin Falls Police Department a list of all of the accidents that occurred on Bentleyville Road and what we got back was zero. There were five incidents, one with a deer and the other four were people weren’t looking at the car in front of them going east to west on West Orange or Chagrin who weren’t paying attention probably on their cell phone or texting and rear ended somebody who was making a left turn. We asked Moreland Hills, give us a record of all of the complaints that you have had from anybody about the condition of the road and what we got back was a long list of documents but what it shows is that there has been no activity in the way of complaints by anyone since before 1998. In 1998 the Village of Moreland Hills studied the issue some more and again studied it in early 2002. Mr. O’Brien said define “complaints”. Mr. Markowitz said somebody complaining that the road was deteriorating further. He said the last indication was in 1998 but it was not from any residents, it was from a discussion in the minutes of a meeting where the Mayor was discussing there was some road deterioration from the boundary line at Chagrin Falls and Moreland Hills. At that time the road was one lane. At the last meeting we were told that there were all these complaints and all this problem of deterioration.

It was asked, how are you going to deal with the issue of the weight of all the dirt fill? Mr. Markowitz said you have the ability to put weight limits on roads and regarding roads that are concerned about deterioration you can require bonds from the contractors to protect the road. How are the vehicles going to turn in? This road design that we showed you is the same kind of road design that every other residential subdivision has and that the radius of the turnout is going to meet all of your criteria. We are not here for any other variances; we are going to meet all of your standards. When we acquired the other properties we resolved those kinds of issues that you raised before because this road does have the ability for safety vehicles to turn and it does meet all of your criteria.

Mr. Markowitz said there were two significant things that didn’t get into the February 24, 2009 minutes. One was that when Roger Ritley was testifying, he had said unless the variance was granted the property would be rendered valueless. I think you got that from his testimony from his report but it never made its way into the minutes and he had specifically said that around 145 minutes and 8 seconds into the tape. Secondly, Bill Tomko was at the last meeting. He had spoken at the last meeting that when he was on Council and when they passed the river buffer law that they had taken this property in mind and they had considered the wooded nature and the scenic beauty of the area and that was as to this site they didn’t think there was going to be a use, a development for it and that is why they put that river buffer in position on this property and that starts 1 hour, 39 minutes, and 40 seconds is where he was talking about it. The point was is that what I heard him say and what the tape says is that the reason why they added the tree requirement of the buffer regulation so that if your tree line starts by the river that you extend that river buffer beyond the 120 feet along the Chagrin River and the reason we did it was for the aesthetics not necessarily because they wanted to protect the river. The other important thing to understand about that is that within this 120 foot buffer, particularly on this property, we are going to have a significant tree line and the quality of what you are trying to protect for that river is going to able to be met by that 120 foot requirement. That is the maximum requirement in any other community other than there are a few places. The tree line idea is that you can help establish a better temperature control and you can help maintain stability to avoid erosion. That is one of the things that we believe that with this 120 foot buffer on this site you are going to be able to accomplish that.

Mr. Markowitz said the thing you’ve got to keep in mind here is that the way your regulations read is there is no development that can occur and there was a mistake made at the last session where, I hate to say this but it was Mr. Tomko who said it and I don’t think he realized what he was saying at the time but he said there is already a house on this property so they have full use of that house. Well, that house is in Moreland Hills. In Chagrin Falls, which is the only community of the two that has the river buffer requirement that creates a necessity for this variance. There is no improvement at all and there would be no use that can be made of this property if we don’t get the variance.

Mr. Markowitz said some of the issues Amy Brennan brought up are things that you can’t answer until you are in the planning stage for the subdivision. What I would say to you though is you that raised a concern and you say we want to make sure that we are not only protecting the river buffer but we are protecting along the flood plain setback. We agree with that and what we have said from day one, and we will stipulate that, is that we believe that the variance should be that the property could be developed but the setback has to be at a minimum. The greater of a setback from 120 foot river buffer or the, you may call it the base flood elevation but what I call it is the outside limits of the flood zone so that we will not have any improved structure within that setback. The plan we showed you had the river buffer extending further than the flood plain in most of the site but as you got to Moreland Hills as you are going really kind of south there is a small triangular area where from out information at the time the flood plain extended further than the 120 foot setback and we said that we would keep out of that area, and we still will. We have no problem with you granting the variance on the basis that whatever that flood plain that we have to stay out of is that we will maintain the integrity of that if it is deeper than the 120 foot. If the 120 foot is deeper then we will maintain that setback so that there is no question that we are going to observe the spirit and intent of your flood plain regulations. For example, when you get into the freeboard issue of the homes, I don’t think it becomes relevant if you are building a home outside of the flood plain. I am not sure Amy will agree or disagree with what she thought we were doing but as I understand the law, I don’t have to deal with freeboard in your code or in the F.E.M.A. regulations if I am outside the flood plain. However, if it becomes a concern to Amy, to the Planning Commission when the base flood data is presented to them that if there is some concern that we need to deal with that and we need to build up so we are 18 inches above that or even if you had to eliminate a basement on the water if that became a problem we would do that because that is what the Planning Commission is going to require anyhow.

Mr. Markowitz said all of our experts testified that by maintaining the setback of the 120 feet, you are going to be able to maintain not only the integrity of the flood plain issues but you are going to be able to maintain the other environmental issues that I think you were trying to deal with in your river buffer regulation or what all the other communities do with their riparian laws. And I think you have the basis to be able to know that when this gets to the Planning Commission that all these experts who have already been in front of you going to be back in front of the Planning Commission and that the integrity of the community will be developed. In addition to all these issues that have come up about the retaining wall, I am confident that the Planning Commission is not going to allow a road to be built and homes to be built unless Al Esser and Tim Lannon confirm that the design is acceptable and the risk factor is well enough that it is acceptable to your community.

Mr. Markowitz said the point that Russell Berusch made is that he believes that our project may have very limited viability in the fact if you follow the design suggestions by a lesser then probably aren’t going to make any money on this project. We disagree with him. My client wouldn’t continue to spend money on legal fees and all these experts if he didn’t think that there was some profit to be make on this project. We had to show to you what the minimum variance necessary is. It is clear from Russell Berusch’s report that we need at least the 14 lots in Chagrin Falls so I don’t think anybody could stand here and argue that give us a variance but only allow us to build 6 homes, 8 homes, whatever. We need every one of those homes to make this project fly if you agree with Russell Berusch’s report. Mr. O’Brien said, which is not before us. It is not a subject that is before us tonight. Mr. Markowitz said it is in a sense that we are saying to you that we have no way to develop and get any kind of return without a variance and at the minimum variance that we need it to be able to maintain that setback of 120 foot.

Mr. Markowitz said I would ask you to consider all of the confident, relevant evidence that has been presented and we would ask you to make a decision that allows us to be able to make an appropriate and reasonable use of the property and that the variance be granted on the basis that we would meet the greater of the setback of 120 feet or whatever the flood plain setback is as determined when it is in front of the Planning Commission.

Mr. O’Brien said I do understand what you are willing to stipulate and I also understand that you would like to get a decision tonight. My concern is, as I said earlier, I would really like to know exactly where the line is. I know what you’ve said you will stipulate, but I understand the implications of that. I would like to have that knowledge before we, and I am only speaking for myself at this point, but I would like to have that knowledge before we act. Mr. Markowitz said we can certainly get that information. I talked to Joe Gutoskey tonight as Amy was presenting because I wanted to make sure I understood what she was looking for and wanted accomplished. Although we prefer that you make your decision sooner than that, I recognize that we wouldn’t be back here until June 2, 2009, and my client is going to have a heart attack when I say this, that information is obtainable and if you are looking to have a clear, ascertainable what is called bright line, that is accomplishable. We would prefer that you not do that but if that is what you are looking for, we can do that.

Bill Tomko, 36 Maple Street, said I believe what I said, although I didn’t review the minutes to see how many minutes and seconds it was into the tape, which other people have done, is the river buffer ordinance we specifically looked at properties if we were going to be depriving anyone of any and all use of the property, hence be a taking, and this was one of those properties, there were structures on that property and they were felt that there could be some development or redevelopment of that property. Amy Brennan from the Watershed Partners can speak more to that issue based on a recent supreme court case in Moreland Hills. As the issue of the trees, I spoke to the issues of the trees because they are very important for slope stability for two standpoints from water runoff and absorption of the water and hence the watering of the soil. A large tree can take several hundred gallons a day out of the slope and hence not reduce the sheering effect. That was the case and along with scenic beauty those were the two reasons but the primary one was for runoff. We have already seen I think two or three houses sliding down the hill from Skyline Drive and we have the Robiskie case where you know the Village of Moreland Hills didn’t stick to their guns and what a huge lawsuit in process. I urge you to be very cognize of these things. You don’t need an expert to tell you that these are unstable slopes.

Mr. Williams said if it requires a motion I would to continue this until our next meeting so that we have a chance to get that additional piece of data regarding the flood plain so that we can enter that into the facts as well. Plus, there was some significant additional evidence that has been entered in here and I would like to, the Board would like to have the opportunity to digest this material. This is, I am referring to the very thorough report from Mr. Ritley, all 150 pages of it or whatever it is. But that, since our meeting is not till June 2nd, that ought to give me just enough time to get through it all.

Mr. Boehringer said I agree with what you said John. Get the line, know where it is at; that is our charge. But out of this report here, I know you have challenged it but I am just looking at the basic pictures. I have not walked the property. When you look at these pictures and the water levels, I don’t know how accurate they are as to where they are located. They have the insert of the map where these pictures would be in there and with the fill and everything, of course I guess Amy will straighten all that out for us.

Mr. O’Brien said okay, then we will continue this matter to June the 2nd.

SPILLWAY, LLC, 218 CLEVELAND STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1139.04, YARD AND BUFFER REGULATIONS, SECTION 1141.04, STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS, AND SECTIONS 1353.06 AND 1353.08, RIVER BUFFER, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-17-001.

Mr. Himes said the applicant has requested a continuance until further notice.

The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.

____________________________
John O’Brien, Chairman
lgb

27th Year

Waste Management’s Solar Powered Compactor is built to last! It is 100% made in the USA with 99% U.S. manufactured parts. Read More