Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> A d <br /> Based on the above findings of fact the Board concludes that: .- <br /> INTERPRETATION - The zoning administrator's interpretation of Section _ of the zoning code his/ie notl`o <br /> correct interpretation because: <br /> APPEAL. - The order of the zoning administrator [is][is nor] in excess of [his][her[ authority because: <br /> VARIANCE - The variance must meet all three of the following tests: <br /> A. Unnecessary hardship [isICAI(M present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance <br /> would &iXA.`F0U] deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because: SLrucLure was <br /> grandfathered in at present setback; the floor of the addition would be above <br /> regional flood which would allow reitsonible and sufe use d elevation <br /> B. The hardship 1s rsX,YAJ due to physical lino tions of the property rather than the circumstances of the <br /> appellant becsusc: B existingbun ld in location and elevation. <br /> e, <br /> C. The variance VARA will nor] be contrary to the public interest as expressed by the objectives of the ordinance <br /> because: The a_ <br /> to protect it from damage, mor s ' U*ian a permitted unattached cirace that could <br /> be 2 feet below theregional flood. <br /> CONDMONAL USE - The application for a conditional use permit [does][does not) qualify under the criteria of <br /> Section of the ordinance because: <br /> 2 - <br />