My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
OCT. 19, 1994
Town-of-Mooresville
>
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON LINE
>
MINUTES
>
Board Of Zoning Appeals
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
OCT. 19, 1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2005 10:11:15 AM
Creation date
4/15/2003 9:39:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BZA
BZA - Type
Minutes
DATE
1994-10-19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FINDINGS OF FACT <br />MOORESVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS <br /> <br /> The Mooresville Board of Appeals now makes the following findings of fact pursuant to <br />the request filed by Stephen Hartzburgh and Judith Hartzburgh on the real property commonly <br />known as 45 East High Street, more particularly described as Lot 2 in Block No. 35 in Samuel <br />Moore's Third Addition as recorded in Page 253 of the office of the Recorder of Morgan <br />County, Indiana, requesting a variance from the use standards to allow the operation of a beauty <br />salon. The Board of Zoning Appeals having found notices to be in order and having held a <br />public hearing now finds pursuant to I.C. 36-7-4-918.4: <br /> <br /> 1. That the approval of the variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, <br />morals, and general welfare of the community due to the location in an area where other <br />business uses are and due to the fact that this at one time had been a non-conforming use within <br />the community at the same location. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance <br />will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner due to the other similar uses in the area. <br /> <br /> 3. That the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property <br />involved, namely the prior use of the structure for a business. <br /> <br /> 4. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an <br />unnecessary hardship if applied to the property due to the past use as a business. <br /> <br /> 5. That the approval does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan due <br />to other business uses being allowed in the area. <br />1. The Board then proceeded to a discussion of a variance from the development <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.