|
REGULAR MEETING March 11, 2019
<br /> and are doing business, you get sued. The fact this is a for-profit, we are somehow supposed to
<br /> look less-favorably on it? My doctor giving me radiation for my cancer is making a profit at the
<br /> end of the day. If he is saving my life, I'm ok with it. The fact that this is an alien or foreign
<br /> corporation from Michigan? Battle Creek is closer to us than Indianapolis. It makes no sense.They
<br /> use a local realtor, a local lawyer, they are a part of our community.
<br /> Councilmember Jake Teshka continued, So, let's be honest,the argument here is the fact we don't
<br /> want addicts living in this particular building,right? As a Council Member, that is something I'm
<br /> supposed to be prohibited from viewing. So, when I look at that map, there are three (3) parcels
<br /> designated Office Buffer in a sea of Multi-Family. When I made a phone call to the planning team
<br /> last week I asked them, tell me about this Office Buffer. What is the particular reason? The
<br /> planning team told me there is no particular reason why this group of parcels are zoned OB. OB is
<br /> really just used as a less-intense office use that tends to keep the facade of residential place, such
<br /> as a chiropractor's office or a consulting business. Other special exceptions might be a video store
<br /> or a hobby shop, a music store,those types of things. So, looking just at that tells me we can move
<br /> this zoning to Multi-Family. In reality,this property was likely a residential property to begin with.
<br /> In my mind, then we come to the special exception and is where the rubber meets the road here.
<br /> Again, unless you're looking at the argument of not wanting these types of residents living here, I
<br /> don't think we can turn this down. I'm in favor of this. Again, thank you for going through the
<br /> process, being in our community and providing this desperately needed service.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis stated, In terms of the idea that our zoning staff would say there is
<br /> no reason why Office Buffer is in place, to have that as a reason, kind of goes against the whole
<br /> zoning process. If that is no reason, then why do we have zoning? There has to be some reason
<br /> that was there. I'm sorry that the people who talked to Councilmember Teshka were not able to
<br /> give him a better understanding of that because to just change things and say there is no reason for
<br /> it,then they should have come in front of this Council to make that decision. I hope those kinds of
<br /> decisions will be cleared up as we continue to work on our zoning process. There are reasons why
<br /> we have our zoning. When they are changed, they have to be changed. Whatever the reasons, we
<br /> have to look at the conditions like we have up here (referencing a displayed document outlining
<br /> the five(5) criteria for consideration of a rezone) and what the most desirable use is. I really think
<br /> the idea of having an Area Plan Commission for South Bend, I hope one (1) of the key things
<br /> added to that will be the concept of our economic development and helping to find locations that
<br /> are within the zone. For me to sit up here and say there was not another place available for this in
<br /> the whole City, it would be shocking to me. If we don't have enough places for this, we have to
<br /> look at that and look at areas across our City to make sure we don't have to have special exceptions
<br /> for problems like this every time a program like this comes up. There is something wrong with
<br /> that if that is the case. So, you now, we need to look at a variety of issues to see that. All these
<br /> issues here, the most desirable use and everything else, are at risk, in my opinion, if we don't take
<br /> care of this. So, I will not be supporting this tonight.
<br /> Councilmember John Voorde stated, Focusing on zoning criteria, after extensive discussions with
<br /> other Council Members, I tend to agree with Councilmembers Broden and Davis and will not
<br /> support the petition.
<br /> Councilmember Karen White stated,Zoning, as I have stated,historically,has really been the most
<br /> difficult decisions and discussions we've had since I've been on this Council. Looking at what is
<br /> before us, the decision must be based on land-use consideration and not the characteristics of the
<br /> potential residents. Again, as we begin to look at the rezoning, the special exceptions, we are
<br /> looking at if this is the most desirable use of the land before us. No one, I believe, is saying that
<br /> the services that would be provided are not wanted or that they should not be in our community
<br /> because that would be a misstatement. The question before us is if this is the most desirable use.
<br /> As we look at the standards before us, we have now eight(8) present members of the Council and
<br /> their interpretation of that may vary. As you hear now, you are hearing Council Members state
<br /> why they are in support or in opposition of this rezoning and special exception. Again, we are
<br /> looking at the standards given before us. But, I think it is very clear,hopefully,that I don't believe
<br /> there is a Council Member who is saying that we believe the services you provided are not needed
<br /> or not wanted. I would like to thank the petitioners for the work you've done and responding to all
<br /> of the questions and also the passion you have in terms of the work you are doing. I think it's
<br /> 21
<br />
|