My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
JUNE 19, 1985
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
JUNE 19, 1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:11:15 AM
Creation date
4/15/2003 9:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BZA
BZA - Type
Minutes
DATE
1985-06-19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
at the drawings there were certain questions regarding the amount of property <br />Mr. Bible owned in the area which would affect the issue of lot coverage and <br />setbacks. Paul Walters asked Mr. Korn if he could provide additional information <br />and Mr. Korn advised this could be done by the next meeting. It was then agreed <br />that this case be tabled until the next meeting at which time Mr. Korn would <br />provide additional information as to the property ownership in the back area, <br />parking, lot coverage. The Board asked if any remonstrators were present and <br />no one answered regarding this petition so additional notices will not be required. <br /> <br /> The next item on the agenda was the petition of Automotive Armature to allow <br />parking on the two lots located at 341 and 357 East Bridge Street, Mooresville, <br />Indiana. Jack McGuire was present to present the petition. Mr. McGuire advised <br />that the complaint that any neighbors he had spoke to would only relate to use <br />of the alley on the south side of the property. Currently they were using an <br />entry and exit on the north side. He advised that parking at this time would be <br />primarily for office and warehouse help with no trucks. He further stated that <br />the old fence on the south side of the property would be left up. After a brief <br />discussion, the Board made a finding that: <br /> <br /> 1. The approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, <br /> morals and general welfare of the community and that no harm should <br /> inure to the neighboring properties. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br /> in the variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner <br /> due to the industrial uses in the area. <br /> <br /> 3. That the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar <br /> to the property involved, primarily that due to the number of ways <br /> you could enter and exit this property the variance allows some restriction <br /> to the adjoining property owners by granting the use without opening up <br /> traffic flow in the alley on the south side of the property. <br /> <br /> 4. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.