OCT. 26, 1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the legal notices were in order and the petitioner proceeded to give an explanation of their request. In particular, Mrs. Copat explained that she intended to run an alteration shop on the premises. She did not expect to have a sign on the premises nor any excessive traffic. The Board opened up questions from the floor. Mark Williams of 87 North Carlisle advised that he was a next door neighbor and was in favor of the variance. He stated that he felt that the Copats would not do anything to damage the neighborhood and because of this he would recommend that the variance be granted. Linda Hadley of 52 E. Hadley, the property directly behind the Copats likewise said she was in favor of the variance. Dale and Leona Heschelman had a question as to whether or not the variance, if granted, would be specifically for a use as an alteration shop and to the Copats. The Board's Attorney advised them that this would be the case and that the variance is granted to the Copats only and would not be valid if they sold the property. Mrs. Cox of 58 East Carlisle Street, the property owner across the street, raised an issue of whether or not there would be any parking problems. The Copats advised that they expected no parking problems nor excessive traffic. There being no furhter questions the Board discussed the variance as requested and Chairman Oschman then closed the discussion stating that he would entertain a motion. Paul Walters then made the following finding of fact: 1. That the grant of the variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The nature of the business would not greatly affect the surrounding area in any manner. 2. That the use or value of the area adjacent to the subject property would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: The use of the property would not change greatly in any manner which would possibly affect the surrounding property owners.