Laserfiche WebLink
Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 2014 <br />MR. URBANSKI: But then you couldn't build the other house because you'd have two pauses nn the same <br />piece of property. I'm sorry, go ahead Mark. . <br />MR. MATTHEWS: Well we'll move along with the Special Exception, if we need to re-apply we could do <br />that, but we can move along with the Special Exception that says even though this is a legal non-conforming <br />it would lose it status if it doesn't go far a year or two. Again the issue is whether the new construction, <br />again the duplex is going to be there. The issue is whether the new construction will improve the streetscape <br />and improve lifestyle of the neighborhood. <br />MR. VELLEMAN: But we can't do one without the other. <br />MR. MATTHEWS: I understand and that's why I'm offering this concession. 1 didn't realize that was the <br />issue that the fear was that this would be a duplex for the rest of eternity. I can help them with that. <br />MR. PHIPPS: I don't think rt the whole issue concerning of the neighbors. <br />MR. URBANSKI: I'll tell you. I have a suggestion, I can't make a motion. <br />MR. PHIPPS: I'll make a motion. Back a long time ago, Angela Blvd. proposal, was that today Mark? 1 <br />repeat what I said then. I think it is appropriate for this proposal too. We have no control over whether <br />people live in their property or rent it out. W e have no control whether they rent it to students and certainly <br />no control aver student behavior. But one thing that we do have some degree of control over is the density <br />of the development. And that's really what they're asking far would be variances to change lot lines and <br />with the variances for each is to allow another house to be built where there is already a density factor and <br />one house on a relatively small property. T again would say I am opposed to grant any variances that would <br />relax the standards which would increase, in this case, the density because I think that's not the only <br />problem, it's part of the problem. The more students you get in a small area adds to the behavior problems <br />the neighbors suffer from. It may be that the students out number the residents and I think they should be <br />able to decide what goes on but that's not for me to say. But what we're asked to do is to approve same <br />variances which would allow them to increase the density from what it legally is now to another two or three <br />people. And I'm opposed to that, so I'll make a motion to deny the variances. <br />MR. URBANSKI: I guess before we get a second, my comment is... <br />MR. FEDDER: You have a motion on the floor. <br />MR. URBANSKI: Okay, do we have a second? <br />MR. PHIPPS: One thing I failed to mention, as I pointed if we deny the variances the Special Use is <br />irrelevant because they can't get the Special Use ifthey don't have the variances. So we eventually will be <br />making the decision. ~ - <br />82 <br />