JUNE 19, 1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

potential problems and home values related to this would be detrimental to the Commerce Drive area. He stated that there were 3 other property owners present, along with the other neighbors who signed the petition that were all against this. Steve Oschman then questioned where the additional mobile homes in a park setting were located. This was pointed out along with a discussion regarding the distance of the proposed mobile home to other homes in the area and this park. The Board then questioned the type of variance being applied for. In particular the Board's Attorney stated that the variance sought was actually two variances from the use standard. The first would be the variance from subdividing the property since two homes would be on one lot and secondly, from the ordinance standard of applying for a special exception for a mobile home versus the variance sought. Warren Franklin questioned Sam Korn as to the sanitary line and the attorney for the Zielskas advised that they would comply with whatever the town wanted. Mrs. Rooker, one of the remonstrators, then advised that the mobile homes in the trailer park were not as visible because they were in a valley and for that reason she felt the current request had more impact on the neighborhood. The Board then proceeded to make its findings. First regarding the variance from subdividing the land they found that: 1. Approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community due to the size of the lot involved being far lot larger than many of the adjacent lots in the area which had been subdivided. 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance would not be affected in any substantially adverse manner since this property abuts two streets. 3. That this property did not meet the requirement that the strict -2-