JUNE 19, 1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought in that the use is a reasonable one but the traffic problems could create hardships to the neighbors and if denied, hardship to the property owner due to its location. 5. That the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan in that this use is not offensive to related uses in the area. Paul Walters then made a motion to grant the variance to allow parking on the properties located at 341 and 357 East Bridge Street with the restriction that no entry or exit is to be made from the alley on the south side of the property. This was seconded by Tilford Bailey and unanimously carried. The next item to come before the Board was the petition filed by Phillip a~d June Cowden, 59 E. Washington Street, Mooresville, Indiana, requesting a variance to operate a one station beauty shop in the residence and for a sign. Mrs. Cowden was present along with her attorney, Sam Korn. She advised that there was sufficient parking for one or two people and that it would be sufficient for the business that she does. She stated that the maximum number of people that would be present would be one to two. Paul Walters then asked what she would need regarding a sign. The Board then proceeded to the following findings of fact: 1. That approval of this variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community in any manner. 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner due to the light nature of the business operation. 3. That the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved due to its location and proximity to business areas in town. 4. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would -5-