Laserfiche WebLink
<br />dirt issue and stressed that whatever use goes on that property would in fact require <br /> <br />, that area to be filled in prior to construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Ward responded that these changes were made after he bought and developed <br /> <br />his land and the Board should not allow his business to be jeopardized. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawson stated that these were experienced developers and that they would <br /> <br />not take on a project of such proportions if they thought the area would turn into <br /> <br />a slum. He felt that the market area for such a housing project would be Morgan <br /> <br />County and merely Mooresville. He felt there was a good possibility that the market <br /> <br />might extend as far as Indianapolis. He felt that the introduction of such a housicg <br /> <br />project would have a ripple effect and would cause the businesses in the area to <br /> <br />prosper. <br /> <br />Concerning Wooley Sawmill and Thesing Veneer, Mr. Lawson stated that the <br /> <br />plaintiffs are aware that these industrial uses are there and that they would be <br /> <br />held to the Environmental Protection Agency standards, but he feels that the concerns <br /> <br />'- of these two industrial uses are such that the property in question could not be used <br /> <br />for anything. He stressed that each of these two industrial uses. were non-conforming <br /> <br />uses, that the land which they owned are not zoned industrial and therefore they <br /> <br />could not expand their facility into the petitioned property. <br /> <br />Mr. Eddie Hasten polled the remonstrators present and asked them if any <br /> <br />had any problems with sawdust as was suggested by Theising Veneer and the response <br /> <br />was negative. <br /> <br />Steve Edwards asked whether the setback requirement under Section 4.4 was <br /> <br />meant to apply only to the uses set forth therein, which were being placed within the <br /> <br />vicinity of existing A or B districts or whether those requirements were meant also <br /> <br />to apply to a situation where a proposed residential district is being placed in <br /> <br />the vicinity of existing uses. Attorney Ksenak responded by saying that the language <br /> <br />contained within Section 4.4 was somewhat ambiguous and stated that the possible <br /> <br />reasons behind that section could support a reading either way. He informed the <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />Board that one of the responsibilities of this Board was to interpret the ordinance <br /> <br />if terms contained within the ordinance were unclear. The controlling factor should <br /> <br />-10- <br />