My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AUG. 3, 1983
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
AUG. 3, 1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:11:12 AM
Creation date
4/15/2003 9:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BZA
BZA - Type
Minutes
DATE
1983-08-03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
MINUTES OF MOORESVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br /> <br /> The Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals met at a specially called session <br />on Wednesday, the 3rd day of August, 1983 at 7:00 o'clock P.M. at the Mooresville <br />Town Hall. Present were Board Members Steve Oschman, Ray House, Paul Walters, and <br />Wendell Thaler. Also present was the Board's Attorney, Timothy C. Currens. The <br />meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Oschman and minutes of last meeting <br />were approved by all members. There was a determination of a quorum and the Board <br />proceeded to the first item of business on the agenda which was Case Number 4-1983 <br />filed by Otis L. Keene of 419 Northfield Drive requesting a variance to establish a <br />set back line on the back side of their property for placement of a garage. Present <br />to present Mr. Keene's case was Judy Arterberry of Smith Brothers Builders, the <br />company contracted to do the construction work. A drawing of the property and <br />location of the garage was shown to the Board. There were no remonstrators present. <br /> <br /> The Board discussed the proposal and ask questions of Ms. Arterberry. There <br />being no remonstrators present Chairman Oschman requested a motion from the Board. <br />Paul Walters then proceeded to make the following findings: <br /> <br /> 1. That there are exceptional and extraordinary <br /> circumstances or conditions applicable to the <br /> property of the petitioners and to the intended <br /> use that does not apply generally to the other <br /> property or class of use in the same vicinity <br /> and in the district in which it is located. <br /> <br /> 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation <br /> and enjoyment of a substantial property right <br /> possessed by other property in the same vicinity <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.