>MC AVEY LLC – An amended application for the development of property at 237
Godwin Avenue, Block 2202 Lot 20 in an R-3 zone. Applicant is seeking
approval for a re-orientated, two-lot subdivision with the proposed lots
facing on Godwin Avenue instead of South Monroe Street. The uses will be as
follows: the existing three family house now located on the property will
be modified to two family use, (proposed lot 20.02) which is permitted in
the zone and the vacant Bozzo house located at 54 South Monroe Street, Lot
21, Block 2403, moved to the proposed new corner lot (lot 20.01), remaining
a single family home. The net result will be a reduction from the four
dwelling unit proposal currently before the Board to a three dwelling unit
proposal permitted by the regulations. Variances for lot 20.01 are as
follows: Front yard setback will be 17 feet where 40 feet is the minimum
required, building height will be 33.3 feet where 30 feet is the maximum
permitted. Variances for Lot 20.02 are as follows: Coverage by
improvements within 140 feet of the front lot line will be 47.6% and
coverage by improvements for the total lot will be 46.6% where 45% is the
maximum permitted for both.
>Board of Adjustment Will Meet Tuesday, 3/13 @ 8:00 p.m. to Continue Hearing
6 thoughts on “>Board of Adjustment Will Meet Tuesday, 3/13 @ 8:00 p.m. to Continue Hearing”
Leave a Reply
>Was this application properly posted and were the neighbors notified? I dont think so. The Village has a nice little trick when they want to help their “friends”… Can anyone say lawsuit?
Busy corner? Kids walking to GW Middle School? Lets cut down the sight lines and make it even more dangerous. Why? To help out a very well-connected builder.
Stay tuned!!!
>Apparently, lawyers for McAvery postponed the hearing yet again. How many private homeowners could have their own applications heard if this mess wasnt scheduled and then pulled over and over again???
Sounds like the developer and his friends in the Village Gov hope to slip this one thru in the dead of night.
>Regarding previous post, maybe the postponement had something to do with the weather? Afterall, school were closed that day.
Do some due diligence on your statements before you post please.
>Regarding previous post… maybe the postponement had something to do with the fact that the developer wanted a higher turnout of “friends” on the Board in attendance? To obtain some of these variances, this developer needs a certain percentage of “YES” votes, due to the complex nature of the changes he is seeking. If the numbers arent in his favor, he’ll postpone yet again.
The neighborhood is opposed to this application, and we’ll have actual taxpayers at the April 10th meeting. Will you be there? Or are you involved financially in some way with this project?
How is that for due diligence?
>Regarding previous poster, you’re grasping at straws friend. Due diligence will go alot farther than throwing mud on the wall, which seems to be your “modus operandi”.
For the record, everything was cancelled that day due to the massive snow fall.
>I will not stand in the way of progress!