JAN. 20, 1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

continue the use with no Sunday hours and an upgrading of the structure and yard. Mr. Chandler advised that his wife would be the owner/operator of the shop and that there would continue to be apartment usage upstairs. There being no question by the Board, the Chairman opened the meeting up to statements by remonstrators. Thomas Shake of 51 East High Street advised that he was the home immediately east of the property in question. Mr. Shake stated that he opposed the variance for the following reasons: 1. That two years ago tanning beds were placed in the shop which has increased traffic at least fifty percent (50%) or more. 2. That they now offer sculptured nails and he feels this is a different business use. 3. They keep late evening hours; 4. They've increased the traffic in the alley which is hazardous to the minor children in the area. He also advised that the beauty shop traffic frequently blocked him in his property and drove onto his property to get by. Lastly, he felt that this use was hurting the value of his property. The petitioners advised that they plan to expand the parking in back of the shop. Lastly, the petitioners pointed out that the property next door was purchased at a time when a beauty shop operation was in existence. The board questioned the use of the tanning beds as being a different business. The board's attorney advised that the tanning bed usage was not provided for in the ordinance specifically, however, it is a use that is in existence in many beauty shops and would not necessarily be excluded as a violation of the previous variance. Certainly the sculptured nails is a use that is not inconsistent with the beauty shop business. Tilfors Bailey stated -3-