Laserfiche WebLink
Area Board of Zoning Appeals -- Apri17, 2p 1 Q <br />MR. URBANSKI: Okay and let me ask a question. And I'm not trying to be the devils advocate but I'm <br />just confused, but the property on Howard Street that's the church, now I xealize that he did not come forth <br />for it originally, but if he would have walked into the Building Department across the street and asked for a <br />permit to remodel it, okay, then you would have said to him "you have to have the parking places" da, da, da. <br />Pat Matthews walked into the Building Department to get a building permit and I'm assuming he got a <br />building permit, io remodel the duplex and to remodel the existing home but nothing was ever said to him <br />that he had to bring in... <br />MR. LYONS: Actually before Mr. Matthews bought the property, we worized with the previous owner to <br />make sure it was legally grandfathered for the duplex. So the previous owner actually came in and supplied <br />all the infornr~ation he could to prove it was legal non-confornr~ing duplex and legal non-conforming situation. <br />So when Mr, Matthews bought rt he was aware he was buying a legal non-conforming situation. <br />MR. URBANSKI: But you questioned the church because, for the parking for the non-conforming, isn't that <br />called non-conforming? But you don't question when. a lot line runs through the middle of a house? <br />MR_ URBANSKI: If you own a structure that crosses a lot line, for building purposes it ties those two <br />together for one legal buildable Iot. <br />MR. URBANSKI: That's right, I forgot that. I'm sorry. Alright Iet's call far the vote. <br />A motion for denial of the variances was made by Mr. Phipps and seconded by Mx. Hawley. The motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />A oration to send the Special Exception to the City Council with an Unfavorable Iiecommezedatfon was <br />made by Mr. Phipps and seconded by Mr. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously. <br />After hearing the evidence on the petition, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals find that you did not <br />satisfy the Standards as set forth in l.C. 36-7-4-9i$.5; therefore, the petition for variances was denied <br />and the petition for Special Exception is sent to the City Council with an Unfavorable <br />Recommendation. <br />Based on the testimony presented, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, finds these <br />variances denied and the Special Exception is sent to the Conr-mon Council with an Unfavorable <br />Recoinmeodatiun and will issue written Finding of Facts. <br />PETITTOI®I FOIZ YAR][ANCES DENIED <br />PE'I`ITON FOIL SPECIAI, EXCEPTI®N SENT TO THE COMMON COUNCfL WITH AN <br />UNFAVOI~AIII..E IIECOIVINIENDATION <br />$5 <br />