Laserfiche WebLink
the nature of the proposed Residential Use. <br /> <br /> 2. The board found that the use and value of the area <br />to the property included in the variance would not be <br />in a substantially adverse manner if the variance was <br />that there are other residential uses in the area. <br /> <br /> adjacent <br />affected <br />granted in <br /> <br /> 3. The board found that the variance did not arise from any <br />condition peculiar to the property involved and that the property <br />could be used for local business uses. <br /> <br /> 4. The board found that the strict application of the terms <br /> <br />of the zoning ordinance did not constitute any type of unnecessary <br />hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is <br />sought and, in fact, that the petitioner had requested the rezonin9 <br />change from the Residential Use to the Business Use which created <br />the hardship complained of. <br /> <br /> 5. That the approval does not interfere substantially with the <br />comprehensive plan adopted under the 500 Series of this chapter since <br />there is another residential use next door. <br /> <br /> Based upon the findings of fact Wendell Thaler moved that the <br />variance be denied since the criteria itemized under three and four <br />of the findings of fact had not been met. This was seconded by <br />Warren Franklin and unanimously passed. <br /> <br /> The next item to come before the board was the petition of <br /> <br />James and Phyllis Cottongim of 1612 State Road 144, Mooresville, <br />Indiana. The Cottongims stated that there lot consisted of 12.68 <br />acres fronting on State Road 144 with approximately 280 feet of <br />road frontage. The request was to place a mobile home on said <br />property for a period of two (2) years. Petitioners stated that <br />the mobile home would be located 546 feet off of the road and that <br />it is buffered by a row of trees. Petitioners stated that they <br /> <br /> --3-- <br /> <br /> <br />