|
REGULAR MEETING March 11, 2019
<br /> district. I do think moving away from some of these concepts in our comprehensive plan and
<br /> basically obliterating the Office Buffer District and our reliance on that, it goes down a slope that
<br /> I don't want to go down.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden went on, In terms of most desirable use and the conservation of
<br /> property values, I know we are to look at the best use for the City and the community as a whole.
<br /> My opinion on this is, you're asking for a big change here, that we allow residential to be injected
<br /> into established Office Buffer or small business use area. I guess, within our overall Code,there is
<br /> a reason that by right,if as petitioners you wanted to do this in a Single-Family area, you wouldn't
<br /> even have to come before this Council. There is a reason why it's excluded from Office Buffer in
<br /> our current Code. Outright an office and a special exception in OB, which you as petitioners are
<br /> here to do. You would have, by right, the ability to locate this in a Single-Family One (1) or a
<br /> Single-Family Two (2) District. With regard to the proposed use, I do feel it would be injurious to
<br /> public health, safety and comfort. I'm basing this on the occupancy questions and your responses
<br /> relative to those. I think the occupancy rule is exceeded per the sleeping space that is in our health
<br /> and safety codes within the State of Indiana. In terms of adverse effect, I do believe this Council
<br /> has heard information relative to property values. I'm not talking about perceived, I'm talking
<br /> about actual.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden continued, I'm moving more toward this point of my comments
<br /> because when we move from the rezoning, we are looking at our decision's impact City-wide.
<br /> When we look at the special exception, we really take a finer look and really have to look at the
<br /> adjacent properties. I would say that this Council sufficiently heard information relative to the
<br /> difficulty of making investments, acquiring loans and the challenge,historically,that this area has
<br /> encountered. I guess we've also heard the difficulty of attracting employees. I guess my point on
<br /> this property value is, when you make a business decision in the City of South Bend, to acquire a
<br /> property, improve the property, my inclination is, again, you buy that property with a certain
<br /> understanding of what is to your left, your right and maybe behind you. I think, for the various
<br /> reasons I've indicated,is that if we were to approve this rezoning,it in some ways turns on its head
<br /> some of the neighbors and neighborhoods and what we know works for our business community.
<br /> That is not to say I don't appreciate the services or the quality of services as a petitioner. But that,
<br /> I have to set that aside because that really has no bearing on my decision because, again, zoning is
<br /> permanent.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden went on, My last point is the rezoning would be best retained as a
<br /> Central Business District and I would not concur favorably with regard to the special exception.
<br /> Additionally, for the reasons related to occupancy, I think you have overstepped that per-person
<br /> square footage and I think that does get to safety and health issues that we, as a Council, should be
<br /> primarily and fundamentally charged with overseeing, especially if there is a lack of regulatory or
<br /> accreditation services with regard to this type of facility in State Law.
<br /> Councilmember Jake Teshka stated, As we've heard tonight,this is a zoning issue. Nothing more,
<br /> nothing less. However, since it was brought up, I would like to just say thank you to Ms. Brown,
<br /> Mr. Adolf and Mr. Gerrard for being in this business. You're helping addicts and helping people
<br /> overcome this scourge.A dear loved one(1)of mine,and like so many of ours,need these services.
<br /> Dozens of detoxes and treatment centers, and at the time,my loved one(1)had no real sober living
<br /> facility to take them to. Had we, I think he may have found his relationship with sobriety a bit
<br /> sooner than he did. Also, thank you for going through this process. As Councilmember Broden
<br /> pointed to during our previous resolution, in the past there has been some disparity about people
<br /> who go through the process and people who just set up shop and do what they want. I can tell you,
<br /> right now, in this community there are non-profit organizations setting up shops in our
<br /> neighborhoods, doing what they want, and they aren't inspected. They are not zoned. They are not
<br /> staffed. They are not in any way accredited and they are not coming before this body to get any
<br /> type of approval. It is my understanding that these facilities would be a special exception under
<br /> the Single-Family District. I have not heard an argument against this that has held up in my mind.
<br /> The traffic argument was debunked when Mr. Adolf affirmed that these residents would not have
<br /> vehicles. The idea this corporation has had lawsuits, this realty corporation, well, I've never been
<br /> involved with an organization or a corporation that has not been sued. I sit on the Board of
<br /> TRANSPO, I have a business background, everybody gets sued. It happens. If you are out there
<br /> 20
<br />
|