Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br /> <br /> Steve Oschman inquired as to whether there were ohher tracts of land in <br /> <br />the area with structures on them similar to that proposed by Robert Newman. <br />Mr. Cloud advised that there several tracts of land west of the property in <br />question which had single family dwellings constructed on them. <br /> <br /> The Board finding no remonstrators present, Steve Oschman then moved to <br />determine whether the property in question fell within the development standard <br />variance requirements of lC 36-7-4-918.5. With regards to the first requirement <br />that the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and <br />general welfare of the community, the Board found that there were several tracts of <br />land immediately west of the tract in question which already had single family <br />dwellings constructed on them and this was therefore consistent with the present <br />scope of development in that area which to date had not been found to be injurious <br />to the public health, safety and morals or general welfare of the community. With <br />regards to the second requirement that the use and value of the area adjacent to <br />the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially <br />adverse manner, in a similiar fashion, since there were already single family <br />dwellings immediately adjacent to the land in question, the proposed variance would <br />merely allow the land use to be consistent with that already existing in the area. <br />With regards to the third requirement that the strict application of the terms of <br />the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the <br />property, the Board found that the acreage was too large for one home and not large <br />enough for a farm. The Board also found that the traffic flow on 144 was presently <br />substantial and felt that if a subdivision was required to be placed in that area <br />that tRis would cause an increased amount of traffic flow which would not be in <br />the best interest or welfare of the community. <br /> <br /> The Board found that they were having some difficultly in getting past the <br /> third criteria and therefore allowed Mark Peden to proceed with a similiar petition <br /> on behalf of KOB Enterprises. Mark Peden advised thatithe tracts in question were <br /> not practical for farming and indicated that bhe tracts had been divided up as they <br /> <br /> <br />