Reso 136 File No. 28-V-62,
Alpha Land Company
1 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 136
I. WHEREAS the applicant originally acquired 6 sites totalling
53,760 sq. ft. zoned for multiple, and qualifying for not more than 3
units each, a total of 18 units if developed as six separate parcels;
and
II. WHEREAS Applicants, after investigation, elected to present
the parcels for consideration as a single parcel, thereby qualifying
their holding for the 24 units actually built, an increase of 6 rent-
able units obtained by representations that they wanted to treat it
as a single parcel, and hold it for investment as a single parcel; and
III. WHEREAS multiple housing is normally owned as an investment
with earning capacity--and therefore value--being roughly proportional
to the number of rentable units on the parcel; 24 units being more than
18; and
IV. WHEREAS Applicants now seek to subdivide the whole for pur-
poses of individual sale, pleading hardship if denied, and near com-
pliance on setbacks, and near compliance on density (if the division
is into 3 parcels of 8 units each;
NOW THEREFORE this Commission expresses the following conclusions:
• 1) The Applicants must be presumed to have been in full knowledge
of the ordinances regarding both density, lot coverage, and setbacks
at the time of requesting architectural control; and in both instances
held the property forth as being a single parcel--such holding forth
producing for them very real financial advantages in building and
renting; and
2) To reverse themselves now--after the fact of building---
using the variance device to accomplish that which probably would not
have been sanctioned before the building would seem to confer on the
Applicants a unique additional advantage not fairly and uniformly open
to all at the time their projects in multiple are on the drawing boards;
and
3) The effect of such requests as this would seem to be in the
long run a steady pressure to break down ti_c eaceful.ly set low density
aspects of our ordinances.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the commission recommend denial
of Application 28-V-63 and 21-TM-63,
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, F':;olich, Leonard, Small,
Snyder
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Rampy
• /s/ Charles K. Snyder
Chairman of the Planning Commissior
ATTEST:
Lawrence K. Martin
Secretary of the Planning Commission