AUGUST 2, 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOORESVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Mooresville Board of Zoning Appeals met at a called meeting on Thursday, August 2, 1979 at the Town Hall at 7:30 P.M. The following Board members were present: Mr. Paul Walters Mrs. Nan Kollmeyer Mr. Ray House Mr. Warren Franklin Mr. Steve Edwards The attorney for the Board, Mr. David E. Lawson, was also present. Mr. Paul Walters called the meeting to order. prior meeting were read and approved. The minutes of the Mr. Walters advised the Board that the meeting was called to act upon two (2) petitions being Zoning Appeals Docket No. 4, 1979 and No. 5, 1979. , The Board found that the petitions were procedurally in order to be heard, all notices having been sent to adjoining land owners and public notice also having been given. The petitioners in both Docket No. 4 and No. 5 were represented by their counsel, Mr. Steven L. Harris. The Board proceeded to hear the variance as requested in Docket No. 4, 1979. Mr. Harris presented his evidence for the petitioners and heard comments from the petitioner, A. W. Tuteweiler. Interested parties appeared with reference to the requested grants and opposition was expressed to the variance by Thomas White and Carol White residing at 166 Maple Lane, Mooresville, Indiana. The Whites objected to the extension of the building as requested in the variance. There were no other persons appearing or speaking in favor of or against the petition. Thereafter the Board took the matter of the requested variance under consideration at said public meeting and subsequent to it's discussion a motion was made by Mr. Ray House and seconded by Mr. Warren Franklin and unanimously passed by all Board members that said variance as requested in Docket No. 4, 1979 should be granted finding that: (1) that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property of the petitioners and to the intended use that does not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vacinity and in the district in which it is located, and (2) that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vacinity and district which would be denied to