My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
OCT. 19, 1988
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
OCT. 19, 1988
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
fixture and that he felt it would set a precedent in the area <br />which has several vacant fields. He felt it would hurt the tax <br />base and property values. Herb Hoffman of 28 Keller Drive spoke <br />next and said that he felt that it was unfair for them to put a <br />mobile home on the property while they built their home, and that <br />no one else in the area was doing this. Mr. Hundertmark of 360 <br />Keller Hill Road stated that he lived in the area twenty years and <br />was against the use. Morris Smith, who lives east of the area, <br />north of Keller Subdivision, stated that he can see the property <br />from his home and was against this, stating that it would <br />interfere with his enjoyment of his own property. Steve Kenworthy <br />again emphasized that the appraisals shown would reduce property <br />values ten to fifteen percent, and that there were several homes <br />in excess of $120,000 in the area. Dorothy Lefler of 301 Bingham <br />Road stated that the Beasleys could not be too interested if they <br />were not present. Phil Redman of 16 Keller Drive stated that he <br />felt this type of use was not compatible with the area. Dale <br />Jessup of 641 Keller Hill Road stated that he was against trailers <br />in the area, due to the effect it would have on the development <br />and character of the area. There being no further questions from <br />the Board, the Board proceeded to a discussion. Attorney Currens <br />advised that he had a conflict of interest on this case and could <br />not participate in any legal opinions due to his law partner, <br />Steven Harris, being present as a remonstrator. <br /> <br />The Board then proceeded with the Special Exception findings <br />described under Chapter 5 of the Ordinance. The Board found that: <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.