AUGUST 2, 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Carol white, 166 Maple Lane. Opposed the granting of the variance as detrimental to the children in the area as children do climb over the fence and these children being hurt. she thought it would be of the subject property it would be a danger to Mrs. Pearl Plummer, 213 Bishop. Advised the Board that she opposed the variance and extension of the business. Mr. Thomas White, 166 Maple Lane. Voiced his objections to the extension of the business into the subject property that it would be detrimental to his property. Mr. Gary Shaw, 209 Bishop Street. Objection to the suggestion that the block would be stored to a height of 12 feet in the subject real estate which would be some 5 feet above the existing fence. Also he felt that it would be dangerous to children playing on Bishop Street if in fact the block was stacked to this height. Mrs. Katherine Kinslow, 211 Maple Lane. Voiced her objections to the granting of the variance. Thereafter, the Board heard closing remarks from both attorneys. Mr. Steve Harris indicating that if the stacking of the block was objectionable to the height of 12 feet that his clients would accept a limit to stacking to the top of the existing fence which is in the height of 7 feet. Mr. Kegan summarized his case and indicated that although he was aware that the variance could be limited to the existing property owners individually and that it could not be transferred that in his experience he found that even after the property was transferred in years to come that since the use had already been granted that it was easy for the successor owners of the property to continue the use of the variance as granted. There being no further evidence to consider, the Board considered the evidence as considered by all interested parties and made the following findings: 1. The petitioner has been in business in the Civil Town of Mooresville, Indiana, on real estate which lies directly to the south of the property for which the variance has been petitioned, and has operated such business for a period of in excess of 20 years. 2. That in the vacinity and in the district in which the petitioner's property is located there is both residential property individually owned and rental property owned by third parties and other businesses consisting of the following: General Farm Service;