CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Lottie Michael | 10/6/2004 12:30:05 PM |
| I do not support making exceptions. Zoning needs to apply to all. | |
| Lance Duncan | 8/26/2004 12:40:12 PM |
| Re: Case 2004-159 The purpose of zoning restrictions is to limit a property owner's potentially obtrusive or objectionable actions or structures to areas with similar types of noise, disturbance, etc. - e.g. keep heavy industry with other heavy industry, junkyards in industrial areas only, only residential uses in R-zoned areas, etc. Residential zoned areas are intended for quiet, personal use - not for organizational or commercial activities. An allowance for general charitable organizations is directly contradictory to this intent. The current code already allows home-businesses that are non-intrusive - this could be construed to include a 501(c)(3) activity run by the homeowner and with no significant walk-up or drive-up activity. Otherwise, this sort of activity belongs in a commercial-zoned district. As proposed, the ordinance would leave residential areas wide-open to significant objectionable traffic to an organization's office; to exposure to frequent traffic by drug-offenders, sex-offenders, or law-breakers coming and going to 501 rehab organizations or clinics, etc. - their is no definition of what an "office" entails. Plus parking and vehicle traffic is almost universally going to be an issue at such an organization unless it is essentially a one-person operation. I would also like to object on the basis that Title 21 is undergoing an extensive revision and review process, and this is yet another of a recent flurry of ordinances changing or granting exemptions to Title 21 - presumably to try to get them grandfathered in before the new Title 21 provisions take effect. This sort of change should go through the full public review process along with the other pending Title 21 revisions. I urge the administration and P&Z Board to reject this type of change. | |
| Steven Ellis | 8/26/2004 10:24:01 AM |
| This is wrong. A 501(c)(3) could be anything from a brothel to a stadium. This is a tax status not a use. It doesn't belong in AMC 21. The potential for abuse on a political whim of the moment is too great. And if things don't work out and the approved use is not compatible, who is going to fix the problem. I have not seen the P&Z commission ever get close to revoking a CU approval. We all say because there will be a public hearing that the checks and balances to protect the public will be in place. As we all know that is not true. Zoning Enforcement is normally understaffed for their workload and the MOA would not want to be seen in a bad light by picking on a non-profit. A good example of this is Mother Lawrence. She had a new house built and a covered porch on the house encroaches into a side yard setback. She applied for a variance and it was denied. Two mayoral administrations have chosen to ignore this violation even though there was a valid complaint. I strongly oppose this ammendment to AMC 21 and encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to vote against this ammendment. | |