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 HAS NO AREA MEETING ALL SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S LOCATED ON A PARCEL WITH LAKE FRONTAGE <br /> ON THREE SIDES <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE <br /> OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> PROPOSED GARAGE WILL BE LESS VISABLE FROM THE LAKE AND HAVE LESS <br /> IMPERVIOUS AREA ON SHORELINE PARCEL AND PROPOSED GARAGE WILL FIT <br /> THE EXISTING AREA nEVFl OPMENT PATTERN <br /> 2 <br />