Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> THE VARIANCE MUST MEET ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING TESTS: <br /> A. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS PRESENT IN THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS OF THE <br /> ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD UNREASONABLY PREVENT OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY FOR A <br /> PERMITTED USE BECAUSE: <br /> EXISTING LOT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO REQUIRED SETBACK REGULATIONS FROM <br /> PRIVATE ROAD AND WETLAND <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> LOCATION OF EXISTING PRIVATE ROAD <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE <br /> OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> THE PRIVATE ROAD SERVES ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PAST THE PROPOSED <br /> BUILDING LOCATION. LOCATION WILL NOT PREVENT ACCESS OR EMERGENCY <br /> VEHICLES FROM USING THE PRIVATE ROAD. <br />