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 /> Unique tight lot, no area meets setbacks on the entire parcel. <br /> B. THE HARDSHIP IS DUE TO PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE <br /> CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE: <br /> Current lake, road and wetland setbacks make the parcel unbuildable. <br /> C. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE <br /> OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE: <br /> Moving away from the lake and wetland to preserve these natural features. Road is a dead end so less <br /> chance for right-of-way expansion in the future. <br />