I attended one of the presentations and made the following report to the LCHOA board.
Most people did not mind the chiropractor’s intended use of the residential property (doctor’s office and spa). She wants to keep the residential look and would have her parking lot in the back for about 12 cars maximum. There would be privacy fencing and landscaping around the sides and back of the property as a buffer between neighboring lots. No late-night activities or bright lighting. The three other property owners involved in the petition agreed to these and other commitments that were handed out at the meeting. They also will give consideration to some other suggestions we made, such as when I asked whether the setback from the street would be preserved if existing structures were replaced.
I asked if any of the other property owners in the area had been approached to make similar commitments since there are several that have “goingcommercial.com” signs in the yard. It turns out these property owners are not part of the petition and so are not bound by the commitments.
I asked whether a “domino effect” might occur where, let’s say, we don’t oppose this petition, it goes through, and then the other property owners later petition for rezoning without making commitments to preserve the residential look, would the commission be more likely to grant the rezoning because there were already lots carrying the commercial zoning. The PTRA folks said in their experience, this is very likely to occur.
On balance, I would not object to this particular petition, but the domino effect does worry me. I think the PTRA folks would go along with the Lafayette Road properties being rezoned, but they’re not keen on the 56th Street properties, which is where the chiropractor wants to relocate.
I cannot attend the Feb. 13 PTRA meeting but hope that other LCHOA neighbors will pick up this discussion and voice their concerns/questions on this discussion board or at the meeting.


