2009-15 REZONING PROPERTY - 5 EDGEWOOD COURT

Home Browse Search

Excerpts from Plan Commission Minutes of February 5, 2009 continued: Ms. Erin B�ton was s�n�orn in by Mrs. Poland. Ms. Bu�ton has resided at 256 Victoria Avenue since 2001. One of the reasons they purchased the home was because it was a close knit neighborhood. Ms. Buxton wants the Commission to be aware Edgewood Court is a horseshoe and Victoria Avenue is a dead end street. She said there are parking issues that coine up. She said they would not have purchased their home if they knew the property was a rental property. Ms. Jamie Striglos Kolovadis was sworn in by Mrs. Poland. Ms. Kolovadis has lived at 279 Victoria since 1989. Her family loves the neighborhood. ��hen the property was rented as a duplex last summer parking was bad. She gets all the turnarounds since she lives at the end of the street. She hopes the rezoning does not go through. Mr. Flynn answered Mr. Mickler's previous question by answering that Mr. Charles Kress, a local architect, was the last tenant of Mr. Blake's. Mr. Flynn has an affidavit signed by Mr. Kress stating that he lived there until the end of 1978. Mr. Flynn stated the vast majority of comments from the neighbors are concerning parking. A single family residence could have up to five (5) or six (6) cars. He reiterated the rezoning to R-5 would not be spot zoning. Mr. Mickler asked if each of the duplexes had their own e�terior door. Mr. Flynn stated there is an exterior door at the front and the rear of the duplea which gives both units access. Ms. Patricia Watson was sworn in by Mrs. Poland. Ms. Watson lives at #6 Edgewood Court. Ms. Watson stated since the petitioners purchased the property there have been three (3) different tenants in the duplex. During the summer there were six (6) children living there. Ms. Watson does not like the transient nature of a rental property. She feels going from a single family home to a two (2) family residence is a radical change for the neighborhood. Mr. Glenn Livingston asked what the rules of non-conforming property were. Mr. John Robinson stated a non-confonning property is a property that is either built or used contrary to the zoning ordinance at the time the zoning ordinance is passed. The term that is frequently used is "mandfathered". Mr. Livingston asked if in Mr. Robinson's opinion that this would be spot zoning. Mr. Robinson stated the planning staff believes this is spot zoning. They are trained in this and have looked into it. His analysis is that it looks to him to be spot zoning. Mr. Livingston asked how the other properties in the area are allowed to have duplexes. Mr. Robinson said it is like the people who run through a speed trap and do not get caught. Chairman Smith asked if the Commission should wait until the court has made a decision. Mr. Robinson said the petitioners have asked the Plan Commission to act on this and staff has responded. The petitioners are aware of their court case and have elected to bring this before the Commission rather than wait. �