Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />when the original variance was obtained. She felt that the <br />history of the real estate office there has established this as <br />the highest and best use of the ground. She also stated that she <br />had no intention to change the current use or appearance of the <br />property. <br />Chairman Kimmel then opened up the meeting to questions from <br />the floor. Lois Tandy, the property owner directly across the <br />street, was present. Mrs. Tandy stated that she had a nice <br /> <br />Victorian home that she also wanted to have protected as an <br /> <br /> <br />investment. She felt that the fear of losing the Victorian look <br /> <br /> <br />or the appearance of the residential use would have impact on <br /> <br /> <br />other homes in the neighborhood. Mrs. Tandy stated that the <br />variance protects the other property owners. Diana Grindean had <br />a question regarding the variance and whether or not the fact that <br />the property was under a variance had any restriction on changes <br /> <br />to the location. The board's attorney advised that the variance <br /> <br />was one for use and any changes could take place that were made up <br /> <br />to ordinance specifications. <br />Jerry Davee, 22 West High Street then stated that he felt the <br />current variance allowed the highest and best use. He stated that <br />he had objected to the general business rezoning request four <br />years ago and felt that the board was responsible to keep the <br />variance in place to force the property owner to comply with the <br />variance. He stated that he was against piece-meal zoning and <br /> <br /> <br />felt there was no justification to change the zoning. <br /> <br /> <br />William Abbott then questioned whether or not the proposed <br /> <br /> <br />zoning maps had addressed this issue. Signe Nicholson advised <br /> <br />-2- <br />