SEPT. 20, 1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

additional construction would be of the same nature. The property owner at 419 Conduit Drive then stated the height of the building is a factor to be considered. In particular a building which was very high would totally wipe out the visibility of one of the adjoining property owners. Lowell Baker of 907 East Bridge Street had a question concerning the setback from the highway too. He was advised that the setback request would eliminate any rear setback. Mr. Vaughn also pointed out the Lowerys had taken down the fence around their pool and all ready had two out buildings present all of which he felt distracted from the general appearance of the property. Robert Tucker then proceeded with the board's review of variance from development standards. The board found that the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare due to the property adjoining a state highway. The board found that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner and in particular that the current building which was some what of an eyesore would be eliminated and the new structure would be an improvement. The board then discussed direct application of the terms of the zoning ordinance and whether or not this resulted in practical difficulties in the us~.of the property. Don Barry felt that this standard was met as did Chairman Tucker, Alan Kramer questioned whether or not the structure could have been built on lot 20 with all standards being met. Attorney Smith commented that the strip with the small building on it could not be used in any substantial manner to meet any of the towns zoning ordinance requirements for setbacks due to its limited size. Mr. Vaughn pointed out that the current building was only 12 feet by 16 feet. Don Barry then responded that the difficulties for using the .06 of an acre were -4-