L

One woman’s “noble work” was not enough to support a necessary change for a community driven music teacher at the July 17 Planning Commission meeting.

Michele Gibson, a mother and music teacher working out of her home, filed a request for a variance change and was allowed to advocate for herself during the meeting. The variance request was to increase the parking limit for her home business from one to eight. Gibson supported her request with evidence of the benefits of caretaker involvement in the education of their children, backing from her neighborhood in favor of her business, and refuting the claims that traffic in the neighborhood would be negatively impacted. Despite her evidence, the committee denied her request, concerned about setting a “dangerous precedent,” in granting variances and instead were in favor of changing the ordinance overall.

Planning Director Mary Samaniego advised Gibson of the committee’s plan to deny her request based on the negative impact on traffic and the neighborhood. Gibson presented her argument that increasing the parking limit would in fact decrease the negative impact for both counts. In a statement, Gibson said she specifically requested the increase to eight as her classroom limits are capped at eight students. She continued that her reasons for working out of her home and capping her classroom size were to minimize the cost to her and therefore the amount charged to her students.

Commissioner Jenna Amacher motioned to approve the variance, supporting her decision by stating she believed the current regulation is “overly broad.” She also labeled the current regulation an “undue hardship” that could make the committee responsible for upholding an unconstitutional ruling in “preventing an owner from using his [or her] property as intended.”

Commissioner Marvin Sellers supported the motion to grant Gibson’s request because he felt that the existing regulation was excessively strict. To illustrate his point, he posed a hypothetical scenario: If a family had eight children and each child owned a car, under the current regulation, the family would not be allowed to park on the premises simply because they are considered patrons of Gibson’s business rather than her immediate family. Sellers highlighted this as an example of how the regulation could lead to unfair restrictions.

Commissioner Daniel Berry used this argument against those in favor stating the hypothetical eight children “all live there. They belong there at that house.” Although he agreed that the traffic would decrease, he reaffirmed his stance that the distinction between commercial and residential regulations must be upheld. Furthermore, Commissioners Bill Comer and Berry argued they would be “setting a dangerous precedent” for future requests. Amacher refuted this claim and quoted Samaniego in stating that they cannot be biased on previous rulings. As such any precedent setting argument is null and void since the committee is on a case-by-case basis.

In additional opposition, Chairman Paul Schwer, while sympathetic to Gibson’s cause, voted against the request in order to address the issue through changes to the overall ordinance at a later stage. He stated, “This is a noble cause of yours.” As a neighbor he agrees with her and admits he would have signed her petition, however, in his chairman position he must disagree.

The committee’s discussions raised concerns about the complexity and potential consequences of granting a variance over an ordinance change. Berry’s final comment of “Let’s fix it once and be done,” reiterated Amacher’s earlier questioning of the board’s purpose if not to review the necessity of granting variances on a case-by-case basis to address undue hardships. There were reservations about the possibility of several requests being made in future and ultimately decided to reject the request. The committee acknowledged the need for a balanced approach considering both individual circumstances and the broader impact on the community.