Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br /> <br />parties could agree to go ahead and hear evidence at this time and the Board <br />would table the matter until the next meeting after an additional notice was <br />given and both parties had additional time along with any new parties to <br />present evidence. The remonstrators, present by counsel, agreed along with <br />Mr. Stovall and with this stipulation the parties proceeded. <br /> <br /> Robert Lybrook, attorney on behalf of Mrs. Van Bockland then addressed <br />the Board on behalf of the first of the remonstrators. He stated that the <br />standards in the ordinance of the Town of Mooresville for residential dwelling <br />required 1500 square feet of lot size and the proposed site was 1200 square <br />feet. Likewise, the minimum square footage was 900 square feet and this home <br />would only be 760 square feet. Next, that set-backs could create potential <br />problems with the other mobile home on this property. Also that asking for <br />two mobile homes on one lot by the ordinance definition would be a mobile <br />home park. Mr. Lybrook also stated that although there were other mobile <br />homes in the area he felt that attrition would take care of some of these <br />which were grandfathered in prior to the ordinance. In particular he felt <br />the zoning conception, in general, would be violated by this type of spot <br />zoning and that there was no showing of any hardship by the parties necessary <br />to meet the requirements for a variance. <br /> <br /> John Mills, a property owner within the Town then spoke regarding the <br /> proposed variance. In particular he stated that the mobile homes would do <br /> aesthetic damage to the area, hurting property values. He also felt the legal <br /> requirements for a variance were not met. <br /> <br /> Next, John E. Medsker, 149 W. High, spoke and stated that this would hurt <br /> property values in his opinion. Rachel E. Ruona, of 126 W. South Street, then <br /> spoke, stating that this proposed variance would hurt property values and create <br /> potential traffic and drainage problems. She felt there was no hardship shown <br /> here and was against the variance. At this time those parties who were against <br /> <br /> <br />