Laserfiche WebLink
house on the remaining 3.04 acres. He further advised that both <br />properties had road frontage on Allison Road, with the one <br />property being sold with improvements having 170 feet of road <br />frontage and the other property having 145 feet of road frontage. <br />He advised that both of the properties would have access off of <br />Allison Road, and that the County had already approved the <br />driveway cuts. Mr. Jacobs stated that both tracts are large <br />enough to have a residential home located on them and the only <br />real problem is due to the odd shape of the lots. <br /> <br /> The Board then opened up questions from the floor. There <br />being none, the Board proceeded to discuss the specific variances <br />and proceeded to findings of fact. The Board first discussed the <br />variance request from the subdivision control ordinance. <br /> <br /> 1. In particular, the Board discussed and found that the <br />approval of the variance would not be injurious to the public <br />health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community since <br />the two building sites would each be larger than one acre and <br />sufficient to develop individually. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the <br /> property included in the variance would not be affected in a sub- <br /> stantially adverse manner due to the size of the lots and the use. <br /> <br /> 3. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning <br /> ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the <br /> property due to the amount of ground involved and the location of <br /> the ground being adjacent to Allison Road and not necessitating <br /> other infrastructure required by the subdivision control <br /> ordinance. A1 Kramer did point out that this type of procedure <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />