Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Valanzano stated that if there would be destruction of a home, through the provisions <br />of the zoning ordinance, there are non-conforming use provisions that would deal with <br />the reconstruction or the reestablishment of the use after damage or destruction would <br />probably control under that circumstance. The home could be reconstructed based on <br />those provisions without necessarily having to follow the initial requirements of the <br />overlay because those would be reconstruction after destruction as opposed to new <br />construction. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked how clear is that. <br /> <br />Mr. Valanzano stated that he did not have the language in front of him but was pretty <br />confident that is how the case would be, because that talks about how reconstruction after <br />damage or destruction. So if you can prove that there was fire that destroyed the house, <br />and it was reconstruction after fire, or tornado, those are going to be a pretty obvious test <br />that can be passed as opposed to new construction from the get go. This would be <br />opposed to somebody buying a home tearing it down and start over. <br /> <br />Mr. Valanzano stated that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance for the City of <br />South Bend, there is a whole chapter on non-conforming uses that talks about <br />reconstruction after damage or destruction that results from fire or tornado or natural <br />disaster. He stated that he thinks those provisions in the case of the home burning down <br />would control and say that you can rebuild that house to the standards that it was at <br />before without having to comply with the new standards of the overlay district. <br /> <br />Councilmember’s Varner and Oliver Davis still questioned the language that this overlay <br />district supersedes. <br /> <br />Mr. Valanzano stated only for new construction. He stated that it would be a case by <br />case basis and determine if this is reconstruction or new construction. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kirsits on page 2 under section (b) (4) it still allows for a special <br />exception use to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the South Bend Common <br />Council and this route could still be used if needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Valanzano stated that he wasn’t specifically dealing with the handicapped <br />accessibility. He stated that the variances process that is available throughout all the <br />zoning ordinances is still available to this district. So if there is a situation where a ramp <br />would violate a setback or a height issue or something like that those can be dealt with <br />the variance process that would definitely be a hardship. The special exception process is <br />a slightly different process animal that talks about uses but that is also available in this <br />district. Mr. Valanzano stated that all those relief valves that are built into zoning are still <br />going to be there. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked why if this is so good for this district, why isn’t it <br />good for all district throughout the City of South Bend. <br /> <br />Mr. Valanzano stated that he was asked to come in to re-write this ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Mariani stated that he thinks it could and would be a question that neighborhoods <br />could look at throughout the city. He stated that this is specific to this neighborhood at <br />this time because of what the neighborhood has been experiencing and expects to <br />experience. So it’s a place where they are seeing additional new development and again <br />there was some wanting to control on that new development to assure that certain quality <br />of development was maintained. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he is concerned that if this is just put out in one <br />area, what about the other districts of the city. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 8 <br /> <br />