Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> which are unique to the property due to the fact that <br /> potential PCA cleanup requirements might involve <br /> constructing, removing and then reconstructing a concrete or <br /> asphalt parking lot at META' s expense, as well as the <br /> disruption to the immediate neighborhood involved in repeated <br /> construction and demolition. Mr . Tyson claimed that the <br /> undue hardship which is beyond the control of the property <br /> owner is the fact that the soil pollution is a condition <br /> which META inherited but did not create . <br /> Mr. Tyson stated that META would not change the essential <br /> character or use of the property, and would try to conform to <br /> the promises that were made to the condominium association <br /> with regard to overflow parking. <br /> Mr . Tyson referred the Commission to the drawing by Pfister <br /> Architects which depicts a 46-stall parking lot. He pointed <br /> out that the only variance requested by META is with regard <br /> to the materials to be used; that setback requirements would <br /> be met; that the portion of the property not to be used for <br /> parking would be maintained as lawn; that railroad timbers or <br /> some similar barrier would be installed along the perimeter <br /> of the parking areas; and that a smooth traffic flow will be <br /> maintained by designating an entrance and an exit to the lot . <br /> Commissioner Franzese asked Mr. Tyson what the term of the <br /> requested variance was . Mr. Tyson responded that META was <br /> asking for a one-year, renewable variance . Commissioner <br /> Franzese asked Mr . Tyson when work on the lot would commence. <br /> Mr. Tyson responded that META would go ahead with the project <br /> as soon as they could. He stated that META has allocated <br /> funds for the project and that they had a couple of bids out <br /> although nothing has come back yet. <br /> Commissioner Werenicz asked if Mr. Tyson knew where the PCA <br /> monitoring wells would be installed. Mr. Tyson responded <br /> that he understood the PCA to have recommended three wells , <br /> one to be upstream. He stated that his understanding was <br /> that the water flows downstream in a southeasterly direction, <br /> and thatone well would be installed in the proposed island <br /> area between the entrance and exit, and that one would be <br /> installed in the grassy area next to the parking area where <br /> the tanks had once been located. Commissioner Werenicz then <br /> stated that it appeared .to him as though the proposed wells <br /> wouldn' t interfere with the paved parking area itself . Mr. <br /> Tyson responded that they felt they might lose one or two <br /> parking stalls because at this time flush-mount wells are not <br /> available and that a pipe would extend above ground level , <br /> making necessary the installation of a barrier consisting of <br /> posts around the .protruding pipe. <br />