Laserfiche WebLink
'Area Board of Zoning Appeals—October 5,2011 <br /> MR,DANCH: Yeah, I don't if it was the Housing Authority or the previous owners,that is a vacated alley <br /> up there to now to go back arld re-ded ioate Wwo' a! to either have that p ope 3'own r to north ••. <br /> MR. PHIPPS. 'Tile City doesn't ownsthose two fats <br /> MR. DANCH: No;they:4on't own that one so I dpri't have the availability of owner of both sues al~that. <br /> MR.P Iik'PS Ybu're not really additi any 3#nnre activity to that Patlung area? <br /> MR.DANCH: No,no. <br /> MR. FHI 'P w with'essentally jtxst.a ore <br /> MR,DANCH: That" ..exactly exactly it. It's"basically dust far those few houses and ih.Ws it. I'm Just trying to fix <br /> what kind'of the Housing Authority out there.' <br /> MR. PHIPPS: So there's not room for cars to meet there? Somebody's coming out, somebody has to wait? <br /> MR. DANCH: That's it yeah. <br /> MR. URBANSKI: Area Plan. <br /> MS, NAYDER: We were in favor of the petition as a whole. This is largely an existing situation but Mr. <br /> Danch has already submitted the subdivision and our office is reviewing it,however, when you submit a <br /> subdivision to make these actual lots we have to go back again to whatever the current zoning codes says that <br /> the width, etc. should be. So we would not approve the subdivision under the current configuration because <br /> the lots do not meet the current criteria so and a lot of it is existing, so we're just trying to clean it up for the <br /> subdivision so it can go forward. <br /> IN FAVOR <br /> MS, KAREN URBAKE: 521 E. South Street so I live adjacent to the properties on Rush Street that are <br /> under discussion. Number one, is that diagram available? I have an aerial view but it doesn't show the <br /> proposal. I kind of understood what they're talking about with the existing housing,they're just trying to <br /> pull those lots into compliance. But from what I could gather from what they're talking about three of the <br /> lots are vacant and two of those are side by side and I guess if they're trying to make it attractive for new <br /> construction I would think it would be better to combine those two side by side lots into one decent size lot <br /> instead of trying to get by with those 40'lots in an neighborhood that's not all that popular. I don't know <br /> who that's going to be attractive to for new construction other than investors and certainly prefer to have <br /> homeowners in our neighborhood. Same thing for the two lots on Rush.Street,I believe the one lot is 30' <br /> wide. Are you seriously proposing somebody's going to put new construction;on that. I guess,I would like <br /> to see it combined with the lot next door so that you'd have a house with a yard perhaps:., <br /> 20 <br />