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 REASONABLE USE <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> EXISTING STRUCTURE SETBACK AND LOCATION <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE <br /> OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> NO MORE THAN 450 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA TO BE PLACED IN SAME AREA <br /> AS EXISTING PATIO <br />