Laserfiche WebLink
FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE MOORESVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br /> <br />Richard L. England and Stephane A. England <br />Property located at 67 East Main Street <br />Mooresville, Indiana <br /> <br /> This matter came before the Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals on <br />Wednesday, August 21, 1985, at the regularly scheduled meeting date and time. <br /> <br />The petition requested a variance from the use standards of the property described <br />in the attached legal description to the petition. In particular, the request <br />was to allow the petitioners to operate a telephone sales and repair shop out of <br />the garage of said home and for a sign advertising said business use. <br /> <br /> The Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals, having heard evidence on the <br />above captioned petition, now makes the following findings of fact pursuant to <br />Indiana Code 36-7-4-918.4: <br /> <br /> 1. That the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, <br />morals and general welfare of the community and that this use should be light and <br />not have any specific effect on the above grounds to the community. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br />in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner in that <br />there are several business uses surrounding this and due to its proximity to the <br />downtown area this should not affect any property values. <br /> <br /> 3. That the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar <br /> to the property involved due to its location which is surrounded by a variety of <br /> uses ranging from industrial to residential. <br /> <br /> 4. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will <br /> constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance <br /> is sought in that this restricted use would create a hardship on the property owners <br /> in that several businesses are operated in the proximity. <br /> <br /> 5. That the approval does not interfere substantially with the compre- <br /> hensive plan adopted under the 500 series of this chapter due to the similiar uses <br /> <br />in the area. <br /> <br /> <br />