Laserfiche WebLink
house with an open field being directly behind that. They advised that the sign <br />would only be used on days they were open. Wendell Thaler questioned them <br />regarding the placement of furniture out in fropt and they stated that they would <br />leave this up to the Board. Wendell Thaler also questioned them about the sign <br />and they advised that it was a small sign much like a real estate sign would be <br />all they are requesting and in addition, people would e~ter through the alley <br />or along the side of the house. They also advised they owned the property on <br />the other side of their house so this would not be an interference with that <br /> <br />property. The Board asked for questions from the floor, Ben Mendenhall <br /> <br />appeared and stated that he owned the other property adjacent to the house and <br />that he was in favor of the variance request, also advising that the petitioners <br />kept their property well maintained. The Board then proceeded tc findings cf <br />fact and in particular fox,nd: 1) that the approval would not be injurious to <br />the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community since <br />this use would create a high vol~e of traffic~ 2) What the use and value of <br />the area adjacept to the property ~ncluded in the variance would not be affected <br />in a substantially adverse manner due to this be£mg located near other business <br />uses and in somewhat of a transition location from business to residential. <br />3) That the need for the varfance arises from a condition peculiar to the <br />property due to its locatien being in a transition neighborhood from bus,ness <br />to residential~ 4) That the strict application of the ter~ns of the zoning <br />ordinance would constitute an unnecessary bardship if applied to the property for <br />which the variance is sought in that due to its location next to the business-type <br />of use and with the open field behind it this would place some unreasenable <br />restrictions on the use of the property. 5) That the approval does not interfere <br />substantially with the comprehensive plan due to its location in the transition <br />area between bosi~ess and residential uses. <br /> <br /> Wendell Thaler then made a motion to pass the variance with a restriction <br /> that the business use be opened no more than 2 days per week and that the sign <br /> <br /> <br />