01-28-13 Agenda & Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 5, 2012 being used as storage and it previously was used as a revival ministry or what not. There's also a rundown sign on the front of that building also that appears, it has a phone number and it previously said "for lease" but the sign is so faded and damaged now I can't really tell what it says. And so I took all my paperwork to the Building Department and expressed my concern that there might be a religious facility next to it,would I need to apply for a variance or anything of that nature? I looked into it as much as I possibly could to go about everything in a proper manner. MR. BULOT: That's something that would have to be verified and that's on you to verify that, MR. WINDT: Okay, absolutely. MR. URBANSKI: Questions, comments or is there a motion? Again,that to send it with a favorable recommendation, with no recommendation or with a negative recommendation. MR. HAWLEY: I would like to a motion that we send this to the City of South Bend Common Council with a unfavorable recommendation. MR. URBANSKI: Do we have a second? MR. PHIPPS. I'll second that with a comment. Being that this is already zoned Local Business I see that a good business in a nice building particularly if it was separated from Belmont Street as the staff has suggested, would be a positive thing for the neighborhood. The question of safety has been raised and I can understand the neighbors concerns with that but if you ask whether the people who be patronizing this establishment would be anymore dangerous than a convenient store I would have to say probably not and there would probably be a lot fewer of them. So I don't know that I could vote against on the safety issue, but the thing that does bother is that the condition the building appears to be in seems to me will take an awful of money to get it to a condition that I think it wouldn't be a positive influence on the neighborhood and that a nice business would be. And I just don't, from what I've heard of the arrangement, I just can't completely agree with that that would be what happened that this would be developed as it's proposed here. So I would second the motion. MR. URBANKSI: We have a motion and a second on the floor to send it to the City of South Bend Common Council with a unfavorable recommendation. Please call for the vote, MRS. HENRY: The motion was made by Mr. Hawley and seconded by Mr. Phipps. Mr. Velleman? MR. VELLEMAN: This is a tough one. Perception is reality and the perception of all the adjacent homeowners is that this tattoo parlor is going to be a very big detriment to their area which is logically based off history. You can't base a new person's potential off of what the historic of the certain building was. However, since that is their perception and their perception is their reality and part of our aid is not to do injury to anyone around there, I would say yes to this. Just because for that fact. While I don't think with what I've heard what these gentlemen say about their plans, and Jerry I see what you're saying but that's 50