(Editors note: The following letter was sent to the BZA and reprinted here at the writer's request.)
We wish to register our objections to the following appeals to be heard at the Aug. 12 Zoning Appeals Board meeting:
#16024 A and #16024 B
filed by Charles Rizzo and The Anna and Philip Kimmel Foundation to:
1. Subdivide lot Sec. 5, Blk. 82, Lot 130 B-A
2. Erect senior-housing residence Sec. 5 Blk. 82 Lots 29 and p/o 130.
Reasons for the objections are as follows:
1. The erection of a four story multiple dwelling apartment house under the guise of Golden Age zoning on a 50 x 120 ft. lot would result in the urbanization of a residential/business A street.
2. The subdivision of the lot 12-16 Haven Ave. is in violation of the B-A zoning in terms of eliminating the rear yard of the exiting bldg. resulting in a 92.3 percent lot coverage for that bldg. where the code specifies a 70 percent maximum lot coverage.
3. The development of the Evergreen Avenue property is in violation of the B-A code in terms of constructing a four story residential building with 10 apartments plus common areas that include an additional apartment for the superintendent, meeting rooms, offices, a kitchen and, as well, under the bldg. parking garage on a 50 x 120 parcel (93.5 percent coverage in a 70 percent zone). There is no rear yard as required, therefore the proposed bldg. will abut the existing rear structure. The front yard requirement has been reduced by half (from 10 to 5).
4. The parking spaces planned for the first level are undersized (9 x 18) vs. 10 x 20. If this is Golden Age residence these under code spaces would result in a high risk situation for older drivers who may have physical limitations or sensory deficits.
5. Evergreen Avenue is a one-way street going north, funnels into and ends at Main St. Any traffic making a left hand turn would be forced to cross oncoming vehicles increasing the risk of accidents with other vehicles and danger to pedestrians.
6. The west side of Evergreen Avenue from Franklin to Main St. has single family dwellings and a parking lot. The proposed multiple dwelling apartment house would negatively impact the quality of life for the present homeowners by its height, increased traffic by service deliveries, as well as increased density of population by full and part-time residents on a 50 x 120 lot.
Your consideration of these factors in denying the zoning appeals would be appreciated.
Rita V. Tanski