The Southern Mansion, an architecturally significant and historically important building, currently operates as a tourist guest house with 23 rooms. The proposal sought to add a 120-seat restaurant and alcoholic beverage service, requiring both a D1 use variance and a C2 variance. The applicant argued that the expansion would enhance public access to the historic site while maintaining its aesthetic integrity. However, the board found that the proposal did not align with the RS (Residential Seasonal) zoning district’s regulations, which do not permit such commercial uses.

Concerns were raised about the potential impact on the neighborhood’s character, particularly regarding noise, traffic, and parking. Testimony from residents and a professional engineer highlighted the challenges posed by the narrow width of Corgi Street, which could hinder emergency vehicle access. Observations were made about existing traffic issues, with predictions that the proposed bar and restaurant would exacerbate these problems, especially during peak hours.

The board heard from both proponents and opponents of the application. Proponents, including some residents and representatives for the applicant, argued that the expansion would bring economic benefits and increase tourism. They emphasized the historical preservation efforts already undertaken by the Southern Mansion’s owners and suggested that the new uses would complement the area’s tourist appeal.

Opponents were more vocal and numerous, expressing concerns about the introduction of a bar and restaurant in a primarily residential area. They feared increased noise, waste, and traffic congestion. Residents shared personal experiences of disturbances from existing operations and worried that the proposed changes would worsen these issues. They stressed the importance of maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood and adhering to the city’s master plan, which limits commercial uses to specific districts.

Board members highlighted the substantial detriment to the neighborhood’s character and the potential negative impacts on residents’ quality of life. They emphasized that the applicant had not provided a compelling argument for why the variances should be granted, given the established zoning laws.

The applicant’s plan included using grass pavers to increase parking capacity, but this did not meet the requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. Concerns about the visual impact of additional parking on the historic site’s appearance further complicated the proposal’s viability.