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 DESIGN AND TOPOGRAPHY <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> SLOPE ON LANDWARD SIDE OF EXISTING LOT LIMITS BUILDING AREA AND <br /> RESTRICTS BUILDING SITE AT 75 FEET FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE <br /> OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> NEW BUILDING SITE WILL BE BACK FURTHER FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK <br /> THAN EXISTING CABIN AND WILL NOT CAUSE EROSION PROBLEMS FOR NEIGHBORING <br /> PARCEL <br />