AUG. 26, 1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the property in question if such variance was not granted. (3) that the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the proper~y or improvements in the vacinity and district in which the subject property is located and, (4) the granting of such variance will not alter the land use characteristics of the vacinity and the district in which such property is located or diminish the marketable value of adjacent land and the improvements or cause or add to additional traffic congestion to the public streets in the area where the improvements are to be made in accordance with the granting of the variance. Thereafter, the Board proceeded to act upon Docket No. 5, 1979, filed by Allen Do and SuAnn Tuteweiler. The petitioners were again repre- sented by attorney Steven L. Harris. Mr. Harris introduced into evidence a plat of the property wherein the variance was sought for use by the petitioners for office space, parking lots and storage facilities for the existing business which has been existance for a number of years and which adjoins the property subject to the variance to the east. After presenting it's case in chief, the Mr. Sam Kegan, attorney representing the Charles R. Gunnell of 211 Bishop Street, Board heard remarks from remonstrators, Mr. & Mrs. Mooresville, Indiana. Pictures were introduced by Mr. Kegan, being remonstrators exhibits 1 and 2. Attorney Kegan objected to the storage and the extension of the business entity to the subject property of the variance and took issue with the public notice wherein there was an indication that "other inventory" would be stored on the property. Mr. Kegan reflected that the variance would be detrimental to the property of his client and to their enjoument thereof. Further, that the stacking of block to a height of 12 feet would be objectionable to his clients even though the property was presently enclosed by a 7 foot stockade type fence. The following individuals appeared before the Board and objected to the granting of the variance as follows: Mrs. Jane Ditton, 209 Bishop Street. Her property adjoins the subject property to the south and she would object to the stacking of block to the height of 12 feet and oppose the extension of the petitioner's block business to this adjoining property. Mrs. Charles Gunnell, 211 Bishop Street. Spoke in her own behalf and objected to the outside storage. Mr. Charles Gunnell also personally spoke to the Board and objected to the storage of the block in the subject property. -. Mrs. Ruth Allen, 172 Maple Lane, Mooresville, Indiana. Indicated she had 9 pieces of property in the area being rental property and that she opposed the extension of the block company's business onto this property.