Report a Comment

I thought Lance's position at the outset was that the previous owner of the mansion was justified operating the B&B with fewer than 10 rooms (or some such number) and that the only issue was whether a variance would be given to have more rooms. This means that the previous uses, including the two allegedly disruptive parties that Lance remembers (which in reality were not nearly as grave as he imagines) were consistent with the "residential" zoning in place. Is that not right? My whole point, as one who lives closer to the B&B/embassy than Lance, is that the previous use was virtually indistinguishable from what takes place at the adjacent residences and that there was no reason to believe things would have gotten any worse if the variance had been granted. By foolishly opposing the variance, the inevitable happened--namely, it became an embassy and the city both lost precious tax revenue and lost any ability to influence the owner.

One thing I find especially interesting is the idea that this building could have become condos. I strongly suspect that many of the people who opposed the zoning variance also would have strongly opposed the building becoming condos for one reason--parking. With several individual units there is a greater likelihood of people moving in with cars. And since the mansion has only one real parking spot (the spot on Riggs where the curb cut is can barely fit one car w/o blocking the sidewalk), residents would have had to park on city streets. Something tells me the Lances of the neighborhood would have been just as opposed to this use. Ironically, it is likely that an expanded B&B would have had a smaller parking footprint because most guests to the area do not bring their own cars and employees can take public transportation--indeed, the impact of the much larger hotels one and two blocks away speaks volumes.

by DW on Dec 8, 2011 9:58 am • link • report