Liz has stressed the potential problem of smashing the setback requirements in residential, R5, zoning. Safety does seem to be the intent of setback requirements, and not something that can be simply dismissed as an aesthetic consideration when granting zoning variances.
The spot zoning required for Campus Inn smashes both the height restrictions and setbacks at this gateway site for the residential district. Normally 35’ is the height limit for this residential district. When variances are requested for greater height, with a maximum of 60’, these are tied to greater setbacks. (Perhaps the designers of zoning code realized how easily beer bottles could be dropped from the third floor swimming pool onto unsuspecting neighbors in the dark shadows of their backyards or onto public sidewalks.) By both requesting a massive height exception and simultaneously eliminating setbacks, the safety provisions of zoning code are rendered null and void. Should safety and zoning codes simply be eliminated? Or should these be officially recognized as laws only for those with less than a certain number of millions? Why would taxpayers want to keep a null and void ZBA when essential city services like fire houses and libraries are being outsourced or eliminated? Glenn ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
