1981-04-01 Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

e e . Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting April 1, 1981, Page 6 people are here, some of the people who didn't sign this asked me for blanks which I didn't have. I know it's not properly done. It was just a poll taken. I did find that as you got further away from the property you found more people who said, "I think it's a good idea and it doesn't affect me, and I think the home ought to be there." As you got closer to the site itself, you found more opposition to the change of the property. I think it is those people in the immediate vicinity who are affected the most. I think if you took a vote of all La Porte, everyone would vote for the idea, including myself, of having expansion of this type of facility. I think it is the immediate property and home owners that are affected mostly. I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to express my opinion tonight. . Askins: Mr. Gilbert, could I address some questions to you? One of the points you raised is one I had anticipated in my remarks to Mr. Spicer, and that is the restriction of the use over a period of time. It seemed like to me that your two principal objections were that the mortgage could be paid early and therefore that covenant would be conceded with the release of the mortgage, and that your second objection was that if the rezoning is accomplished and there is 51 units on say half the block, what's to keep them from building on the other half of the block. I have not discussed this with the Happy Harbor folks, but assuming this, that a written agreement that could be recorded in the deed records and thereby become a covenant running with the land could be entered into in addition to the rezoning. In other words, a tractual undertaking that would be like a deed restriction, let's say. Both on a restricted use for a facility of this type for the elderly and handicapped with these prescriptions which we have discussed for a given period of time, 25 years, 40 years or whatever might be agreed upon, which would remain in effect regardless whether the mortgage was paid off or not, further providing if the rezoning was done, and let me say this, the word II commercial II is a fault in our ordinance because it's a misnomer, we have a type of zoning ordinance which groups multifamily housing in a com- mercial use, but the application here is a restricted applica- tion for 51 units for the elderly as they were described. If a rezoning were approved by this Council, the type of ordinance would be equally restrictive. Assuming a written undertaking could also be had as to further expansion, limiting that, would that meet your two principal objections which you have voiced here tonight? . Gilbert: That would certainly be better than not having them at all. Even if the use were to stay that way for 40 years and I am assuming that just the project being built there, my question to the appraiser, what's going to be the effect on my