My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
OCT. 18, 1989
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
OCT. 18, 1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:11:11 AM
Creation date
4/15/2003 9:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BZA
BZA - Type
Minutes
DATE
1989-10-18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE MOORESVILLE <br /> BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br /> <br /> The Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals met at its regular meeting place, <br />the Mooresville Town Hall, on Wednesday, October 18, 1989. Present were board <br />members Don Barry, Vern Kimmel, and Alan Kramer. Vice-Chairman Barry found <br />that there was a quorum present and proceeded with approval of the minutes <br />and findings of fact of the September meeting. <br /> <br /> The first item to come before the board under new business was the petition <br />of Faye Goldman, the contract purchaser of the property located at 22 North <br />Clay Street, Mooresville, Indiana. Present also was the property owner Cleo <br />Biviano and the attorney for the petitioner Russ Stoval. Mr. Stoval advised <br />that they were requesting a variance to conduct a craft store which would <br />fall under a local business classification. He advised that the traffic would <br />be light and that generally no more than one car would be present at a time. <br />Pictures were introduced showing the prior uses of this structure which included <br />the Pink Front Laundromat, a motor cycle shop, pizza shop, and a gymnasium. <br />The pictures reflected that the lot was very small and that the structure <br />was built as business use. <br /> <br />The board reviewed the exhibits and proceeded to a discussion of the <br />proposed variance. There were no remonstrators present. The board found that: <br /> <br /> 1. The approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, <br />morals, and general welfare of the community since it was compatible with the <br />area and past uses. <br /> <br /> 2. The board found the use and value of the area adjacent to the property <br />included in the variance would not be affected in a substantial adverse manner <br />since the property had been used for other business uses and the residential <br />rental use had had more of an adverse affect. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.