Laserfiche WebLink
(3) That the need from the variance arises from some <br /> <br /> condition peculiar to the property involved in that High Street is <br /> <br /> a combination of residential and business uses. <br /> <br /> (4) That the strict application of the terms of the zoning <br /> ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to <br /> the property for which the variance is sought due to the fact that <br /> the property has historically been used for this type of business <br /> and is adjoining another business use which has a lot of traffic. <br /> <br /> (5) That the approval does not interfere substantially with <br /> <br />t~e comprehensive plan in that High Street has several business <br />uses already. Warren Franklin stated that he did not feel this <br />was met. The board then polled its members as to the findings of <br />fact and the board approved the findings of fact by a vote of <br />three (3) to two (2) with Steve Oschman and Warren Franklin voting <br />against. <br /> <br /> The chair then entertained a motion which was made by Don <br /> <br />Barry to grant the variance of use with the following restrictions: <br /> 1. That the business not be opened on Sundays. <br /> <br /> 2. That the sign be no larger than two and one half feet by <br /> <br />three feet, that there is adequate parking for customers and <br />employees on the site, that the hours be restricted from seven A.M. <br />to nine P.M. and lastly, that there shall be no more than two (2) <br />tanning beds and six (6) beauty stations. This was seconded by <br />Bob Tucker and passed by a vote of four (4) to one (1) with Warren <br />Franklin opposing. <br /> <br /> The next item to come before the Board was the petition filed by <br /> <br />Joe Thompson, 54 Crestwood, Mooresville, Indiana for a variance from the <br />development standards.as to rear and side set-backs. Mr. Thompson <br />was present with his daughter-in-law who lives in the residence along <br /> <br /> <br />