Laserfiche WebLink
11863 Langer <br /> 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 /> LIMITED AREA OF EXISTING LOT <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> DEPTH OF LOT, WHICH WAS CREATED PRIOR TO ORDINANCE <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE <br /> OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> WILL FIT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND WILL MEET THE 75 FOOT <br /> SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT TIME OF LOT CREATION <br />