Laserfiche WebLink
Decatur City Plan Commission <br /> February 7, 2002 <br /> Page Four <br /> The existing house would be razed and a sight break fence constructed on the west and north <br /> sides. Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that a fence is required for commercial uses adjacent to <br /> residential property per the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> Mr. Sh <br /> am ine asked what the current use is on Lots 15 and 16. Mr. Krimmel stated that there is <br /> P <br /> 'f staff was aware of the track and Mr. <br /> houses. Mr. Sham ine asked i <br /> ck between the existin p , <br />, a tra g <br /> Van Steenhuyse answered no. Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that if a residentially zoned property <br /> ' violation of the Zonin Ordinance it would be addressed through Neighborhood <br /> has a use m g <br /> Standards and the Legal Department. <br /> There were objectors present. <br /> Mr. Ed Flynn,Attorney, was present and spoke in objection to the petition representing area <br /> residents. A list was distributed that was characterized by My Flynn as a list of objectors. Mr. <br /> Flynn stated that he had spoken with Mr. Krimmel and many of the issues have been resolved. ' <br /> He stated that Lots 15 and 16 had been withdrawn from the petition and assumed the City would <br /> obtain that in writing. Mr. Flynn stated thaf the residents were requesting that Lots 31 and 32 <br /> continue to be green space and the fence be erected on the proposed pavement area. The portion <br /> not contained in the fence continue to be green space with the exception of a rock drive. Mr. <br /> Flynn stated that he believed staff would concur that the test track on Lots 15 and 16 is in <br /> violation of the Zoning Ordinance and in turn that situation would be handled through the <br /> violation process. The residents requested that I.ots 31 and 32 not be used as a test track as a <br /> track would raise a lot of dust. Mr. Flynn requested that to be included as a condition of the <br /> rezoning. <br /> Mr. Shampine asked how Mr. Flynn proposed to do that. Mr. Flynn stated that the use is in <br /> violation of the existing Zoning Ordinance. He stated that it is an enforcement issue and separate <br /> from the purpose before the Commission today. Mr. Flynn stated that if a B-2 zoning is granted <br /> and it is determined that a track is allowed, the residents are requesting that the tradc not be <br /> allowed per a condition of the Plan Commission. � <br /> Mr. Oakes asked how long the test track has been there. Mr. Flynn stated that he did not know <br /> but it has been a track for awhile. His clients were not aware that the track was a violation. <br /> Mr. Oakes asked if no one had objected why is the track an issue now if it has been in use for I <br /> years. Mr. Flynn stated that he had not said the track was in existence for years; the track is <br /> worn. He stated that breaking the law for years doesn't make it right to continue to do so. Mr. <br /> Oakes stated that he did not get an answer to his question. Mr. Flynn stated that he had answered <br /> the question to the best of his ability as he didn't know how long the track had been in use but it <br /> is worn. Mr. Flynn stated that the resident immediately adjacent to the southwest end of the <br /> track is handicapped as is their child. They are home all day most days and it was physically <br /> difficult for them to attend the meeting. <br />� _ ___ <br />