17-75 Special Exception 806 Howard Street

Home Browse Search

Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MR,JAMIE HAIGH: I live at 925 N. Notre Dame Avenue, directly behind Mustillo's. Also through one of the other property owners own the strip of land where the trees are directly across. I would not have paid what I paid for t hose properties if this had been there. So one of the elements in granting the variances is that it will not harm the property values. It will. And the letters that you have testify to that. I'd like to present a certificate here,the Mustillo's and Haigh's have a gathered,this is a certificate listing only property owners within 300' received the notice. Twenty eight of them,through emails,through personal conversations with us,to letters to you all,twenty eight of them,that's basically all of them, are adamantly opposed to this saying that it will harm the character of the neighborhood,saying that it will dramatically reduce property values. Of those 28, 23 felt strongly enough, and you've got some from other people,to write letters testifying to that fact. So I'd like to introduce this,this is basically everybody. There's some, obviously some out of state and city owned properties. So when folks say,and these people all think that the current building,which is not attractive, is better than what is proposed. And regarding the height,technically there's requirement on the height but if they put a third floor office,they would need what another 15 parking spots,and they would objected to on that. That use does not belong here. I understand it's there but to amplify it in any way is harmful to the neighborhood,folks everyone around it, everyone, is adamantly opposed to that. This is all about one person's condo. We have all the neighbors adamantly opposing it's going to hurt their property values and this is one person's condo. Those belong on the Eddy Street corridor, downtown, east of campus,that's where those belong. They don't belong in this neighborhood. MR.WILLIAM MATTISON: I live at 100'from this place at 928 N. Notre Dame Ave. I'm one of your letter writers so I'll spare you the details of on the parking and what not but I'll address two procedural issues. When the Staff explained the basis of their recommendations they did mention that no need for the variances have been granted in the previous hearing which seems absolutely true but my understanding is those are open again once this is being proposed as a different use of the property.So while it may be the case of it being granted in the past,to apply that therefore there's confident(could not understand what he said) toward that kind of makes a farce of this, of this(once again could not understand what was said). So we are legitimately being asked whether these variances now also make sense to spite the fact that they've been granted in the past. And note that the variance at times attains such a radical nature that it almost seems to call into the question of the original intent of the zoning ordinance to move parking down from 35 to 4. To move one setback down to 0', is not just a minor change in judgement. Like the 8'to 5'one,or 25'to 20'one,seem reasonable. These seem to call into question the very basis into question the very basis for the zoning regulations in the first place. And the second point as to the mixed use variance. That is actually a new development and does require wholly new consideration. And for reasons that have been abundantly clear already,to have a mixed use property approved in this neighborhood where no such property exists and we strenuously tried to avoid,would be a radical departure from character of the neighborhood. I will say that my understanding is that petitioners have handled themselves very honorably, been communitive and do have a proposal to improve the aesthetic value of this property. A rejection of this variance today is not a rejection of any future use of that property it's a rejection of this use for the third floor and the reduced parking so this not to say on going relations with the neighbors couldn't result in a mutual and beneficial arrangement,except this one due to its radically should not be accepted. Thank you. MR. BRIAN LEVY: I live at 918 N.St. Peter, so we're three houses down from the 806 property. And I do appreciate that the petitioners here want to make an investment in the neighborhood but ten years ago we made an investment in the neighborhood along with many others here. We moved to this area, we could have moved anywhere,we could have moved to Granger, could of sent our kid to Penn High School, we wanted to live in South Bend,we wanted to part of something. We wanted to invest in the community. We met a lot of long time neighbors. We wanted to invest in the Northeast Neighborhood and we've made a significant investment and I think if you approve this you're sending the wrong message to those who have already made an investment in single family homes in a residential neighborhood. And those other would be home builders, what does this message say to anybody else who's thinking about buying a house in the neighborhood or building a house in the neighborhood? I've sent a letter, one of the many record letter writers and I ask that my letter be part of the record. Thank you. 17