05-10-10 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 24l 4 MR. LANG: Same of those questions can be answered by the owner regards to that. IN )li A~®R MR. MATTHEWS PASSED OUT PAPERS TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME MR..l. PATRICK MATTHEWS: I live at 52127 Fall Creek Drive, Granger, Indiana. In particular the items that I would to address are the ones that were submitted by Area Plan and the letter that l received last week. And for the Special Exemption Use determination, the Special Use determination and adapting of appropriate Findings of Fact, so we would stick with the Findings of Fact. One of their initial unfavorable recommendations is that the use may be injurious to the health and safety of those living in the duplex. By allowing the duplex to continue and building another house in front of it and blocking views from the street, will make access to it harder and harder to see and get to my emergency vehicles. My rebuttal to that is that the access to the duplex is not now and was never intended to be across this vacant lot. The issue that Y ann going to reiterate here is that this is about new construction of a new bungalow home. The duplex that is existing right now was existing for many, many years and when I went to get the necessary permits to improve it there were no remonstrators then. The neighbors was very happy that I was removing the existing conditions and improving the property. But getting back to the access, any reasonable and prudent responder will notice that they could access by using the north south or east west alley adjacent to the building. With respect to the visibility the current building is a two story structure that will be easily visible behind a one scary bungalow and within seconds they will be able to realize that they should access it through the alley. Further I would be happy to visit with any local fire or emergency personnel to determine if it is in fact a concern in fact for the responding departments. Their second rebuttal ox unfavorable recommendation that the use may adversely affect the adjacent area or property values therein since the duplex is out of character with the neighborhood. And I'm just going to continue on. The character of the district in which it is located is largely single family in nature. New haznes are being built in the neighborhood and older homes are being renovated. The Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Plan, I]ecember, 24x3, has identified this area for single family home ownership preservation. Which we all agree. And in my opinion all of these statements support the fact that I would like to build a new single family bungalow style Name. I don't understand the unfavorable recommendation comment. The fact that the investment and the mortgage on the duplex has been made and that issue is not debatable. Whether you approve this favorably or pass it an without any recommendation at all, the duplex is going to continue for decades to come. The investment has been made. The neighbors and the neighborhood and Code Enforcement were all very happy to have the previous owner and tenants removed. They were happy for me to clean up the property and make the investment and the improvements. There were na concerns about the fact that the property was a duplex at that time, they were just happy to see it get cleaned up. This is about construction of a new bungalow and the increased property values and improved streetscape that this building will bring to the area. I've already invested tens of thousand of dollars just in the preparation of the vacant lot. I have had new water and sewer taps installed. Site work has been completed by civil engineers. Architectural work has been completed to design a home appropriate for the area. This work was all performed in goad faith that I gained from initial meetings with the Building Department and the Area Plan. over the last year. Practical difficulties will result from stranded investment in the property tat will not be recoverable. The neighbors will not benefit from a 69