Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> THE VARIANCE MUST MEET ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING TESTS: <br /> A. UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS NOT PRESENT IN THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS OF <br /> THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD NOT UNREASONABLY PREVENT OWNER FROM USING THE <br /> PROPERTY FOR A PERMITTED USE BECAUSE: <br /> APPLICANT HAS AREA FOR ADDITION WHICH MEETS SETBACKS <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS FOR DECK CONSTRUCTION DID NOT EXISIT <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE OBJECTIVES <br /> OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> PROPOSED DECK VARIANCE WOULD ENCROACH ON SETBACK AREA TO PUBLIC WATER <br />