I routinely watch, or attend, zoning hearing board meetings. I must say that I have some trouble understanding the use of the term "hardship" as the basis for granting zoning relief. Most of the confusion for me is with development/re-development proposals, not with individual home issues. For example, last night I was in attendance for the presentation for a proposal regarding a public storage facility for north Wayne, and the major hardship that appeared to be presented was that the developer wanted to maximize profit potential for the site. Didn't the folks know the rules when they purchased the property? If not, shame on them, but I don't believe we have an obligation to cover their errors.
The other item that sticks in my craw is the proported "justification" that "all the other properties in the district don't conform." Well maybe these other properties were grandfathered into "non-conformance" by the imposition on new zoning. And of course when we impose new zoning we can not make existing properties conform. Also, isn't it amusing how the developer wants to play both sides ... for example, Cowan alley is not a street but they wish to use it for an access, or the backyard is on Pennsylvania and the front yard on Plant BUT the main entrance will be on PA and the gate on Plant will be kept closed and locked.
By the way, the construction of these three large, three story barn like structures will have a significant impact of the community. And we haven't begun to discuss issues such as traffic or lighting or noise.
Stay tuned.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment