Laserfiche WebLink
4. Mrs. Sylvia Gregory, 49 E. South Street, appeared. She indi- <br />cated her objections to the variance. <br /> <br />5. Mrs. Margaret Jones, who resides at 252 South Clay Street, <br />indicated that she did not oppose the variance and felt by placing <br />the home on the lot, it would provide adequate residence for <br />another family. <br /> <br />6. Mr. Tilford Bailey, an interested citizen, not affected as an <br />adjoining property owner, indicated his objection to the variance <br />and indicated that a prior variance had been granted to the Heath's <br />with reference to property on North Indiana Street and problems had <br />developed in that variance and he questioned the credibility of the <br />petitioner. <br /> <br />7. Mrs. Berniece Glidden, 60 East South Street, an adjoining prop- <br />erty owner indicated she had talked to a contractor who was to move <br />the building and he indicated that he could not get the home on to <br />the lot in question unless they went across her ground and she indi- <br />cated she would oppose that procedure. She was also against the <br />granting of the variance in accordance with the comments given by <br />her son who previously spoke for her. <br /> <br />Mr. Glidden presented a letter from owners in the area which was <br />filed with the Board indicating they could not be present to oppose <br />the variance. The letter was read by the Board. <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Harris made closing remarks on behalf of his client and <br />presented pictures which were offered into evidence concerning the <br />condition of adjoining property. <br /> <br />There being no further evidence to be heard, the Board proceeded to <br />deliberate upon the petition and upon motion made by Mrs. Nan <br />Kollmeyer, seconded by Warren Franklin, a motion was made to deny <br />the variance for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. The evidence would indicate that granting of the variance would <br />be materially detrimental to the property or improvements in the <br />vicinity and the district in which this property is located. <br /> <br />2. That the petitioner failed to show any exceptional or extra- <br />ordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or <br />to the intended use that did not apply generally to the other prop- <br />erty in the vicinity and district. <br /> <br />3. That the variance did not show that such variance is necessary <br />for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right <br />possessed by other property in the same district, but which is denied <br />to the property in question. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />