My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-28-13 Agenda & Packet
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Common Council Agenda Packets
>
2013
>
01-28-13 Agenda & Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/24/2013 11:09:58 AM
Creation date
1/24/2013 11:03:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 5, 2012 <br /> the time. Seven years ago I was the willing buyer that was willing to pay more than anyone else for that <br /> piece of property and there is no way I'd re-do it if there was a tattoo,body piercing parlor there. The third <br /> prong was the need for the variance arises from a condition peculiar to the property involved. There's <br /> nothing, I mean it might be depilated, but there's nothing, I mean it's not like it's a land locked parcel and <br /> you need to get access to a road or there's something here that my goodness he can't do his body piercing <br /> anyway in the City of South Bend. We don't have that. It's not because it's a special consideration, in fact <br /> there have been many businesses in there since I've been there and we just heard several that could go in. <br /> And also in the ordinance in Sec. 22-09.03 there are other factor for Special Exceptions. One is the zoning <br /> of the surrounding areas. I don't want to sound like a broken record and you've already acknowledged it but <br /> that whole street is residential. Obviously a lot different than what this property is going to be used for. The <br /> driveway locations, I haven't totally thought through closing that off yet, but I don't think that fixes the <br /> problem and Evergreens certainly don't. There's children that walk through that lot to go to Jefferson <br /> School every morning. I know because when I'm driving through the alley they're walking down the alley <br /> and go slow and look out for them and everything and so either you're going to totally block it off so kids <br /> can't even go to school that way or kids are going to be walking through the body piercing and tattoo <br /> parlor's parking lot to and from school everyday. Sorry to be so long winded, also we you talk about the <br /> lease, if there was in fact, it's my understanding, I don't know from personal experience, but that there was a <br /> service station there at one time. I don't know if there is still underground storage tanks but you know it's <br /> been floated around at various times (could not understand what was being said)purchase that land. If <br /> there's still underground storage tanks in there, I'm guessing their purchase price is going to change. If <br /> you're taking on that kind of environment responsibility. So for them to stand up here and say that, you <br /> know in a year they got everything ironed out, I'm not confident that that's the case and also if they just have <br /> a one year lease how can you totally re-do an entire building, make it look great,fix everything up, make it <br /> all look perfect, and be under water, all that at the end of the year. So I guess in conclusion I just want to say <br /> that all these longtime residents and young families that live in the area we're just asking you not to allow <br /> body piercing and tattoo parlor to be put there and there's been the mention of the stigma, not sure how much <br /> of there that is because you just recommended a tattoo parlor somewhere else so to just stand on that, I mean, <br /> we're not just knocking down everyone, we're just saying we don't want you to put right in top of a <br /> neighborhood that's been there for almost a hundred years. So as a resident that's 15 yards away from this <br /> piece of property with three young children, I'm just respectfully asking your consideration to unfavorably <br /> recommend this to the Common Council. Thank you. <br /> MR. URBANSKI: Thank you sir. <br /> MR. RICHARD DETLEF: I live at 1129 Belmont,South Bend. Tattoo, body piercing, scarifying, and <br /> branding establishments are identified as subject to controlled use regulations. The property we're talking <br /> about is in a Local Business District. Local Business is defined as businesses necessary to meet the daily <br /> needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. For that reason tattoo parlor and body piercing business requires <br /> Special Exception. Those establishments are subject to the regulations that says, no tattoo, body piercing, <br /> scarifying and branding establishments shall be located within 500' of 1)any religious use or 2)any public or <br /> parochial school for children in any grades K thru 12. This business with my inexpert pacing off would be <br /> slightly more than 500' from a public school, from one church and it is adjacent to what is apparently another <br /> church, Revival Ministry. This property has a long and unhappy history. It was essentially made nonviable <br /> 43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.