My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APRIL 17, 1985
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
APRIL 17, 1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:11:11 AM
Creation date
4/15/2003 9:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BZA
BZA - Type
Minutes
DATE
1985-04-17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE MOORESVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br /> <br /> RE: Harlan B. Sterrett and Ruth V. Sterrett <br /> Property located at 1021 State Road 144 <br /> Mooresville, Indiana <br /> <br /> This matter came before the Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals on <br />Wednesday, April 17, 1985, at the regularly scheduled meeting date and time. <br />The petition requested a variance from the use standards of the property <br />described in the attached legal description to the petition. In particular, <br />the request was to allow the use of the property for a C.B. radio repair <br />shop in the garage of the home. The variance also requested a set-back for a <br />sign to go along with the same proposed use. <br /> <br /> The Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals, having heard evidence on the <br /> <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 of the variance would not be injurious to the <br /> <br />public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community due to <br /> <br /> the light nature of the business and low volume of the business. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br /> <br /> in the variance will not be affected±n a substantially adverse manner in that <br /> the volume of the business is very small and there would be no outside advertising <br /> to make the area look anything differently than residential. <br /> <br /> 3. That the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to <br /> the property involved in that said property is located on a highway across from <br /> a school area. <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 <br /> variance is sought since this property does face and is adjacent to a state <br /> highway. <br /> <br /> 5. That the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive <br /> plan in that there are other home businesses in the area, one being a beauty shop. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.