My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
JUNE 15, 1988
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
JUNE 15, 1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:11:14 AM
Creation date
4/15/2003 9:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BZA
BZA - Type
Minutes
DATE
1988-06-15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
requesting a variance for minimum lot square footage from 12,500 <br />feet to 10,218 feet to construct a double. Mr. Woolard was <br />present by counsel, Sam Korn, and in person. Mr. Korn explained <br />that the Woolards owned Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16 and their request <br />was only to Lot 13 with the other lots being developed with single <br />family residential homes. The property in question is properly <br />zoned for single family or doubles. The board then opened the <br />meeting up to questions from the floor. John Sheridan, an <br />adjoining property owner to the area on County Line Road advised <br />that there are water problems and drainage problems throughout <br />this area that continued construction will only amplify. There <br /> <br />being no further questions from the floor, <br />findings of fact as follows: <br /> <br /> 1. The board found that the approval <br /> <br />the board proceeded to <br /> <br />would not be injurious <br /> <br />to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the <br />community in that the size of the double would be compatible to <br />other homes in the area and set-backs would be met. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the <br />property included in the variance would not be affected in a <br />substantially adverse manner since this was an allowable use and <br />would not have any major impact on any of the adjoining area. <br /> <br /> 3. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning <br />ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the <br />property in that a double could not be placed on the property even <br />though it was zoned for- the same without this variance. <br /> <br />A motion was then made by Tilford Bailey and seconded by <br />Robert Tucker to grant the variance as requested and the same was <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.