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 NOW AND HAS ALTERNATIVES FOR LOCATION <br /> AND SIZE OF STRUCTURE <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS NOT DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> APPLICANT HAS ALTERNATIVES <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE OBJECTIVES OF <br /> THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> SIDE YARD LOT LINE WILL NOT BE MET <br />