Minutes-9 /12/1990

Kees: I know John will do a good job. I'm not concerned with the quality of the work. I'm concerned with the R-3 zoning. It will devalue our property. Could he talk to the Board of Adjustment and get a variance for all this? I'd hate to see it rezoned. Attorney Brown: A simple variance would not solve John's dilemma for financing. I understand the P&Z recommended denial. John is concerned with the manner in which it was done. Possibly there was a conflict of interest. Mrs. Williams has an interest in denial as an adjoining property owner. She should have withdrawn herself from the voting. The chairperson said he did not know if it was a conflict. Kees: It would have been a recommendation for denial anyway. Attorney Brown: The recommendation is not binding. Kees: John doesn't have to add another apartment just to remodel. Schneider: I need the fourth apartment to serve the debt. Three units are not enough to cover it. It will help to strengthen the old building by tying to two together. Williams: I have no objections to remodeling the existing building. To get into a fourth unit - no. He's adding too many apartments for the space he's got. Does John live in Tiffin? Schneider: I just stay here sometimes. Williams: You're using the town. Schneider: How? Williams: You want to change things to suit yourself. Schneider: That's not true. Kees: Can't he just get a variance? Attorney Greenleaf: A variance would probably not be appropriate here. The Board of Adjustment is a limited issue. It's defined by very limited standards. The information I have would show a variance to this extent to be inappropriate. It more appropriately a zoning matter. Kees: That's not feasible then? Attorney Greenleaf: That's correct. A variance could be specific to the owner, also. I'm sure lenders would not approve of that. Schneider: I'd remove the old garage and tree stump and have a nice building there instead. Bartels: When you asked for the change to C-1, there was concern about set-back from the highway.