Laserfiche WebLink
FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> Variance requested by John & Zoleen <br /> lambert and Bobby & Mildred Stephens <br /> to install mobile home and variance <br /> ~rom development standards. <br /> <br />This matter came before tbe MooresvJlle Board of Zoning Appeals on <br />Wednesday, March 19, 1986, at the regularly scheduled meeting date and time. <br />Ne petition requested a variance to place a mobile home on ~ residential <br />property along with a current mobile home. In p~rt~cu!ar~ the variance from <br /> <br />ose as a mobile home park and the variance from the special exception requirement <br />for any mobile home were req~ested mlong with variances fro~ the develnpment <br /> <br />standard incl~ding the sob-divisio~ comtrol ordinance, lot set-back lines, square <br />footage o~ the home, lot size, apd side set-backs. <br /> <br /> The Mooresvil!e Board of Zoning ~ppeals, h~ving heard evidence on the <br />above captioned petition now makes the following findings of fact pursuant to <br />Indiana Code 36-7-4-9~8. B: <br /> <br /> 1, That the approval of thi~ variance could be injurious to the public <br />health, safety, mora~s and general welfare of the community with the existing <br />water problems in the area. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and va~ue of the area ~djacent to the property ~nc!uded <br />i- the variance could be affected in a aubstamtially adverse manner dee to having <br />more than one mobile home ~n the lot along with a house, the same affecting the <br />adjoioing property owners' land values due to having two mobile homes on the <br />property, variances from set-back and other standards which diminish the values <br />of the adjoining properties, <br /> <br /> 3. That there was no showing of this variance arising from any condition <br />peculiar to the property involved. <br /> <br /> 4. That there was no showing that the strict application of the terms of <br /> the zoning ordinance would constit~te sn u~necessary hardship ~f applied to the <br /> property for which the variance is sought. <br /> <br /> 5. That the approval does interfere s~bstantially with the comprehensive <br /> <br /> <br />