07-09-84 Human Resources & Economic Development (Controlled use Ordinance)

Home Browse Search

Page 2. • Councilman -Serge -inquired-into the exact role: of the BZA. Their role would not be advisory but rather conclusive according to Mr. Hill. Councilman Voorde inquired whether a .f.ee was contemplated of the petitioner who would-seek BZA intervention. 'Both ch- the City Attorney and Council Attorney agreed that reasonable costs could be .addressed in a fee through proper amendatory language. Councilman Crone voiced concern regarding the 'notice provision especially if there is not an organized neigborhood group. She recommended that a definition be prepared for "structurally altered" . The Council Attorney then was called upon to give a summary of her involvement. in this area. She noted that she assisted Councilman Beck in drafting. a letter to Mayor Parent dated September 23, 1983 regarding possible changes to the controlled use ordinance. She suggested that the ten controlled uses be carefully studied to see if in fact the list was current. She also suggested redefining such classifications as Class A and Class B cabarets,, amusement devices, amusement arcades, and suggested the elimination of family type resturuants. Massage parlors have not been included and perhaps should be. She also requested that notice to the entire Council of a public hearing before the BZA might be an alternative in the notice area. Mr. Roger Baele of the Rum Village Neighborhood Association •contended that the rule change is for a hotel on the East side of town. He questioned why .a good law should be changed. He noted that exceptions often become the rule and he did not want the ordinance weakened since it was very soundly based on law. Councilman Puzzello noted that reviewing the controlled use ordinance was in no way related to any hotel project. • Arlene. Quigley representing her husband, Arthur. Quigley,: who is the president of the Northeast Neighborhood Association then read a letter voicing opposition to changing the :controlled use ordinance. (copy attached) She noted that there were four basic reasons why it should not be amended and that the present ordinance is a "pillar of strength" that- is serving - the entire City. Charles Gnoth. one of the owners of the Loading Zone stated that the ordinance ,is to restricted and he would like to make various improvements at his tavern. Margery Kinsey noted that remodeling an area into a kitchen could later have the same area made into a tavern, - She believed that structural changes and modernization could be made underrthe current ordinance and that only exterior enlargements were prohibited.;, Steve Morty of 730 Notre Dame Avenue noted that many establishments -start out, good then face economic problems and then become a "'real dive"'. He believes that the ordinance has served the community well. He also believed that through the BZA process there would be an undue burden placed on working people who would have to take off from their jobs. Hildegard Zymlak of 19,03 Franklin and a member of the Rum Village Neighborhood Association spoke -in favor of retaining the 1, 0.00 foot restriction.. She believed that it has served the community and all the neighborhoods. Changes should only be made for