|
2
<br />Regarding the four standards for special exceptions, these are listed separately and
<br />they are followed by a statement as to how this petition meets each of these standards.
<br />The first standard is that "the proposed use will not be injurious to the public
<br />health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general
<br />welfare." This proposed use will not be injurious to the public for the following reasons.
<br />First, as regards public health, the proposed use will result in homeless people being able
<br />to live in this house rather than on the streets or with relatives or friends in possibly
<br />overcrowded conditions. Second, also regarding health, this use will give a few homeless
<br />people the time, energy, and wherewithal to address personal health issues, such as a
<br />broken leg (in the case of one Catholic Worker guest), a disabled hip (in the case of
<br />another Catholic Worker guest), a debilitating form of diabetes (in the case of yet another
<br />Catholic Worker guest), and so on. Third, as regards comfort, this proposed use is not
<br />injurious, inasmuch as it does not call for any more people living in this house than
<br />would be permitted under its MF-1 zoning. Fourth, as regards community moral
<br />standards, this proposed use is not injurious in that the moral standards of the people in
<br />the Catholic Worker community or their guests do not differ substantially from those who
<br />live in other homes in this or any other neighborhood. Fifth, as regards convenience, this
<br />proposed use is not injurious to the comfort of the public; to the contrary, if homeless
<br />people living on the streets is taken to be a matter of public inconvenience, then this
<br />proposed use will enhance, albeit in only a small way, the convenience of the public. As
<br />regards the general welfare of the public, this proposed use will enhance it, especially if
<br />we consider (as the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky beckoned us to consider) that a
<br />society is to be judged on how well it cares for its weakest members. In these ways, this
<br />proposed use is not injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral
<br />standards, convenience or general welfare. So the first standard for granting a special
<br />exception is met.
<br />The second standard is that "the proposed use will not injure or adversely
<br />affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein." This proposed use
<br />will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or the property values
<br />therein, and this for several reasons. First, the owner of the property to the north of this
<br />property, a lawyer by the name of Mark J. Piasecki who uses his property for his law
<br />offices, has stated that he has no problem with the proposed use. Second, the property to
<br />the immediate west of this property consists of a vacant building. Third, the property to
<br />the southwest of this property consists of a vacant building. Fourth, the owner(s) of this
<br />property will make interior renovations to this building; this will enhance the value of this
<br />property and thus of the properties adjacent to it. Fifth, the owner(s) of this property will
<br />make considerable improvements to the yard by means of landscaping and regular
<br />upkeep; this will enhance the value of this property and thus of the properties adjacent to
<br />it. Sixth, the owner(s) of this property will be living in this house, thereby increasing the
<br />percentage of homeowners (as opposed to renters) in this area, which is likely to augment
<br />property values. Seventh, while it is true that a house in which six or so homeless people
<br />are living could lower property values, it is also true that many other properties in the
<br />immediate area also house people whose presence in the area, like homeless people, are
<br />thought to lower property values. Such properties include Dismas House, which is two
<br />
|