MINUTES 1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Page 2 '-- secured from the State of Indiana listing the residential home at 431 Conduitt Drive as a place of business, the Board voted and determined by a vote of 4 to 1 (Mr. Grubbs casting the dissenting vote) that the property owner was conducting a business activity in his property which was zoned "A", single- family residence. The Board advised Mr. Wineman to cease and desist from any further activity in regards to "Wineman's Floral Boutique" or any other business activities at the residence. Mr. Wineman was also instructed by the Board's attorney, at the request of the Board, of the procedures that he might follow in either obtaining (1) a rezoning of the property, or (2) a variance of the property. The third property owner, Mr. James Rrippy, failed to appear before the Board and rather than instituting legal action at this time, the President of the Plan Commission appointed Mr. Tilford Bailey and Mr. George Smith as a committee to make further inquiry in regards to the activities at the property wherein it has been alleged that a recording studio is in operation. The Board discussed the use of the property owned by Mr. Heath which was previously occupied by the Kendrick Hospital. A further inspection was to be made concerning the use of this property to see if it complies with the variance which the Plan Commission understands was issued by the Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals. Also, inquiry was to be made to see if the apartment complex complied with the fire regulations as promulgated by the Indiana State Fire Marshall. Mr. George Smith indicated that he had contacted Mr. Glenn Boyce of the Kokorno Plan Commission concerning the implication of their buffer zone. He had been informed that they did not proceed to institute their buffer zone and, thus, was no assistance in advise to the Board in carrying out their plans for the buffer zone for the Town of Mooresville. Further investigation is to be made in regards to implementing the buffer zone and further action to be taken by the Board. A discussion ensued concerning the definitions of accessory buildings and the problems that the Board was encountering in regards to "portable" tool sheds. The Town Attorney was asked to work on a revision in the zoning ordinance concerning the definition of an accessory building and the possibility of limiting the accessory building to a certain square footage. Further action to be taken on this matter. The Plan Commission also reviewed the provisions of the new sub- division control ordinance which was adopted in 1976 and it was determined that the Board would make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees of the Town of Mooresville that the number of ~,