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 THE <br /> ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD NOT UNREASONABLY PREVENT OWNER FROM USING THE PROPERTY <br /> FOR A PERMITTED USE BECAUSE: <br /> EXISTING LOT AND LOT DEVELOPMENT (STRUCTURES) WERE CREATED PRIOR TO <br /> THE 100 FOOT CLASS 3 SETBACK REQUIREMENT <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> LIMITED AREA BETWEEN TOWN ROAD AND ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF RIVER <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE OBJECTIVES OF <br /> THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE CLOSER TO RIVER THAN EXISTING STRUCTURE <br />