Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals - Essay Example

The Board of Zoning Appeals held a meeting on 10/24 to discuss the staff report on the request for CSX transportation on property 2660 South Walnut Street. The CSX transportation request includeDrived, the use of variance to enable outdoor storage and the other request involved approving an 8ft tall fence. The property in question, is located on the te though west corner of West Country Club Drive on Walnut Street and within Walnut Station planned unit for development. On the west is the corridor by the CSX transportation, however, there are also some single-family residents on the west side. In addition, on the south of the property, are single-family residential, owned, and o the east, are commercial properties. The petitioner has purchased two plots to aid in environmental remediation on the property and the corridor (“Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals”).

CX Transportation has been working with an environmental firm to remove the pollution from the site. This is important in terms of providing technical assistance in determining the depth of the pollution. CSX Transportation has worked on the remediation plan for over purposeearsears and has now moved to the south side of the Country Club drDriveive. Part of worthy k on the site involves setting up monitoring wells that have been dug for the purpose of determining the depth of the pollution. The petitioner further claims to have dug collection well that are essential in bringing creosote deposits from the ground which is part of the environmental clean-up.  In this regard, the petitioner is faced with the hurdle of storing crease on drums and barrels. This requires space within the environmental remediation site to store the stockpile of creole. The storage is important for the petitioner while waiting for the appropriate time to incinerate or transport the crease to New York. Removing the crease material means there has to be a place within the site where they can be stored for a short-time period before the next action is taken. In essence, the storage will allow CSX adequate time to look for trucks to load the containers containing the crease (“Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals”).

The petitioner is faced with the problem of restriction for outdoor storage and building of an 8ft fence to secure the environmental remediation site. The request by the petitioner is reasonable when considering such factors as damages to the site, vandalism, and easing access and cordoning of the site because of the nature of work being done which is environmentally unhealthy to the surrounding neighborhoods. To establish outdoor storage, CSX transportation has identified Lot 3 to store the containers, however, the planned unit development does not allow for outdoor storage. The environmental remediation on the site presents a unique situation and CSX transportation has a reasonable request for outdoor storage while arranging how to incinerate or transport the collected creole to New York. In regard to the construction of an 8ft fence to secure the area, the petitioner faces a problem in the sense that, the zoning code only allows for the construction of an 8ft fence where there is a primary structure. As a result, the petitioner is faced with the problem of using a 4ft fence that does not secure the environmental remediation site. The high fence is important in securing the site because the nature of work is environmentally unfriendly and securing the area is of utmost importance (“Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals”).

The other problem that the petitioner faces involves passing through traffic and homeless person in the proximity of the environmental remediation site. Cordoning the area with an 8ft fence is essential in securing access to the collection area. Further, the other problem that faced CSX transportation involved establishing a storage point on a portion of the property that is on a flood plain. This is not desirable, especially with the outdoor storage of contaminant materials. To deal with the property and convince the board of their request, the petitioner moved to the adjacent property, not on a flood plain. Further, the shift to the adjacent property, would enable the petitioner the ease of access within the remediation site and be important in speeding up the clean-up. However, based on the findings by the City Council staff, the petitioner needs the approval to start working on the site and make a proper estimation of when the clean-up is expected to end since the duration is still speculation (“Board of Zoning Appeals”).

Prior to approving the recommendations by the staff, it was reasonable for the Board to ask questions regarding unclear findings in the staff report. This, however, was clarified by the staff who explained the additional plan as not being part of the City planning jurisdiction. The Board was also appropriate to ask about the concerns of adjacent property owners who, the staff gave an explanation on the work being done on the site which involved an environmental clean-up. This resonates well with the residents around the remediation site since the work done on the former castle factory will benefit everyone within the locale of the former castle factory. The Board was also within its mandate to inquire about the number of barrels stored on each individual pellet and the duration of the storage. This provides the Board with an idea of when the batch of containers are removed from the storage site (“Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals”).

Based on the evaluation of the staff’s report on the petitioner’s request, it is understandable that the Board approved the two variances since the petitioner's case is unique and is meant for a temporary undertaking (“Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals”).