Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <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 [is/is not] a <br /> correct interpretation because: <br /> APPEAL - The order of the zoning administrator [is][is not] in excess of [his][her] authority because: <br /> VARIANCE - The variance must meet all three of the following tests: <br /> A. Unnecessary hardship [is][b‘X►yf] present in that a literal enforcement of the terms of the zoning ordinance <br /> [would] CI4h OttlXdeny the applicant all reasonable use of the property because: OF EXISTING <br /> BUILDING LOCATION AND THE FACT THAT ADDITION WILL GO NO CLOSER TO THE LAKE THAN <br /> EXISTING STRUCTURE. <br /> • <br /> B. The hardship [is][t )ftabXl,due <br /> to_physical <br /> LAYOUTlimitations <br /> f the <br /> heLproperty <br /> OCATIOhthan the circumstances of the <br /> appellant because: EXISTING <br /> C. The variancese AD�ITON LA be contrary to ND REMODELINGeKILLtc NOT FURTHErest as R ENCROressed ACH ON the bI AKFeS of the ordinance <br /> because: <br /> SETBACK AND WILL FIT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. <br /> CONDITIONAL 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 />