Laserfiche WebLink
-5- <br /> <br />was made by Tilford Bailey to grant the variance from development standards <br />based upon the findings of fact set out by the Board. This was seconded <br />by Don Barry and unanimously carried. <br /> <br /> The next item to come before the Board was the petition of Gary and <br /> <br />Betty Pryor of 903 North Indiana Street to place a part-time sales office for <br />swimming pools and supplies in their garage. Mr. Pryor explained that they <br />had a catalog sales business for the sale of pools and spas with all deliveries <br />coming directly from the factory. He stated that they wanted to keep some <br />chemicals and sell them out of the garage in addition to the catalog sales <br />business. He explained that they had sufficient parking and showed the Board <br />an exhibit showing the parking and adjoining property owners. In addition he <br />stated they wanted a sign. The Board opened up the hearing for remonstrators. <br />Martha Fishel, the adjoining property owner to the south and east, stated that <br />she was not totally opposed to the business but wanted certain restrictions <br />including the size of any sign, parking and wanted the business to be maintained <br />in a manner that would not threaten the value of her property. She was against <br />any outside storage. The Board asked questions of the Pryors regarding the nature <br />of the chemicals, how they would be stored and delivered, in particular, they <br />wanted to make sure no semis would be present and the Pryors stated this was <br />the case and all parking would be on their property and that they would feel <br />comfortable with a limitation of business hours. There was a discussion <br />regarding hours and then the Board prodeeded to findings of fact. In particular, <br />they found that the approval of the variance would not be injurious to the <br />public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community and that <br />due to the nature of the proposed business it should have little or no effect. <br />Secondly that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br />in the variance would not be affected ina substantially adverse manner due to <br />the low key nature of the business and all of it being conducted inside. Thirdly, <br />that the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property <br /> <br /> <br />