Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2011 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />meeting and it just disturbed her greatly. She stated that Mr. Bumbaca can bring the <br />money to the neighborhood by leaving those two homes individual and fixing them up <br />and renting them that way. She noted that one home is a one and half story and the other <br />is one story, the plan just doesn’t make sense. She urged the Council to vote against this <br />bill. <br /> <br />Patty Walsh, 315 Walsh, South Bend, Indiana, stated that her neighborhood has come <br />back quite a bit from what it once was. She advised that because this petition does not <br />support the single family housing character that their neighborhood has worked so hard to <br />preserve she urged the Council not to approve this petition. <br /> <br />William Berry, 402 E. Pokagon, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is speaking in <br />opposition to this bill primarily because it goes against the efforts of the Northeast <br />Neighborhood Council and the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization <br />which has been trying to redevelop the north east part of the city. He stated that they <br />have been doing a fairly good job of doing just that. He stated that by allowing this <br />special exception is could be fairly easily converted into group housing that those two <br />organization have opposed. He stated that it has been South Bend Heritage’s effort to put <br />more single family housing in the area and this project runs opposed to that. He urged <br />the Council to vote against this bill because it doesn’t follow the direction that is and has <br />been tried to be developed by the organizations that are working hard in the north east <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Noreen Deane-Moran, 716 W. Colfax, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she doesn’t live in <br />this neighborhood, but lives in an area of the City that has many of the same concerns. <br />She asked that the Council for against this bill. She stated that she is puzzled by laws that <br />say that only 2 unrelated persons can live in single-family zoning. But even in multi- <br />family zoning you can’t have hundreds of people in a unit. Multi-Family means that <br />there can be several units. She stated that several State Laws have said that things built <br />as duplexes still must not be duplexes if they have been vacant for over a year or lost <br />their grandfathering. She stated that it was mentioned at the previous Council meeting <br />that this was against students and people were against students. She stated that she is not <br />against students; she likes students very well and teaches them. But it you want to live in <br />houses with 10, 12, 20 people, you’ve get a frat house, or live in a dormitory. She stated <br />that if students want to live like “regular people” you live in apartments, units or houses <br />of no more than two unrelated people. She stated that when her neighborhood was going <br />through a similar petition with the Catholic Worker House she asked one of the <br />Councilmember’s back then how many of the “Kramer Houses” asked for a special <br />exception and was told that no special exceptions were ever asked for. She urged the <br />Council to vote against this on behalf of all the residents of the city. <br /> <br />In Rebuttal, Mr. Agostino advised that they are not asking for more than 2 unrelated <br />people living in the duplex. He stated that the zoning rules of no more than 2 unrelated <br />people can live on each side are going to apply. He stated that they are asking for the <br />special exception to join the two properties because the expansion of the properties would <br />bring them across the property line believe that this is the highest and best use of the <br />property. Mr. Agostino stated that as this is a private investor it should be the choice of <br />that private investor what aesthetically or what makes the best use of the property all <br />within keeping with the law and will keep it within the law with what the Council will <br />choose. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember <br />Dieter seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a roll call vote of six (6) nays <br />(Councilmember’s Kirsits, Rouse, White, LaFountain, Puzzello, Varner) and three (3) <br />ayes (Councilmember’s Henry Davis, Oliver Davis, Dieter.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 16 <br /> <br />