Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/' <br />( <br /> <br />Board of Review <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />March 18, 1975 <br /> <br />.~ <br />'I <br />1 <br />"1- <br />" <br />J <br />1 <br />! <br />1 <br />1 <br />.j <br />~ <br /> <br />ordinance, the side yard is the part of the lot immediately adjacent <br />to the building and that in this particular case, the area north <br />of the building is considered rear yard so that the parking <br />does not violate the side yard setback requirements. <br /> <br />Motion by Harty, seconded by Bohling, to recorr~end approval of <br />the landscape and plot plan contingent on approval of the sub- <br />division of the property. <br /> <br />Motion carried, 4-1 (Daniels) <br /> <br />", <br /> <br />Daniels stated he voted no for consistency with his previous vote. <br /> <br />Re-U~~__9f Non-Confo~minq Property - Indykiewicz: <br /> <br />The Chairman cautioned the applicant about the use of the property <br />no.ting the possibility that this parcel might be included in a <br />future redevelopment project. <br /> <br />Duniels stated that his principle concern with regard to the <br />proposal is that re-use of this property with the changes indicated <br />may not be in the spirit of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Parham stated that in her opinion, this is the key to the proposal. <br />The question bei.ng, i.s that "\>:hich is being proposed such as to <br />significantly reduce the impact of the non-conformities. <br /> <br />Daniels stated that his concerns were one, wh.ether the proposal <br />'meets the conditions of the ordinance and two, what would be the <br />effect on the HRA activities. lie noted that a functioning <br />business on the property would very likely increase the acquisition <br />cost to the HRA. <br /> <br />. <br />party};:<.;. stated that he would refrain fromparticipCl.t.J.ng in the <br />discussion and voting on the application because of his personal <br />acquaintanceship with the applicant. <br /> <br />The Ch.;':d.rman asked that the applicdn.t use lnorc reo.I. pli.':.Dt. 3tock <br />in place of the artificial plantings shown on the plan. <br /> <br />'lilv~ Building and Planning Coordinator stated thut if there is a <br />concern .that an opportunity for upgrading of tho property \I,ill be <br />lost, the Planning Commission might want to consider recommending <br />