OCT. 26, 1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THE USE OR VALUE OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL NOT BE AFFECTED IN A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE MANNER because: the mot immediately adjacent real estate consists of railroad right of way. Further, the enclosure of existing outside facilities will improve the general appearance of Petitioner's property to the benefit of adjacent property. THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE ARISES FROM SOME CONDITION PECULIAR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND SUC~ CONDITION IS NOT DUE TO THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF TH~ NE~HBOPd{OOD because: of the current use of the subject real estate and layout of Petitioner's existing manufacturing facilities, which dictates the location of the proposed improvements. THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL CONSTITUTE AN b~NUSUAL AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IF APPLIED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY because: relocation and reconstruction of the existing soaking vats would result in substantial cost and expense to Petitioner and make it impossible for Petitionr to effectuate necessary energy cost savings. 5. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE DOES NOT INTEREFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE PLAN because: the grant of the variance does not interefer sub- stantially with the Town of Mooresville's existing zoning plan because the continued use of the subject property is unaffected and will remain unchanged. Also, the impact of a variance of development standards otherwise imposed by ordinance in this case is mini- mized by the existance of the adjacent railroad right of way. and then moved that the variance be granted to allow the building of the structure with the reduced Set-back lines as petitioned. This was seconded by Wendell Thaler and unanimously approved. The Board thenproceeded to a hearing on Case Number 10-1983 filed by Silvano and Elvira Copat who were requesting a variance for the opening of an alteration shop at their premises located at 77 E. Carlisle Street, Mooresville, Indiana. The attorney advised