Laserfiche WebLink
Dave Lawson then stated that any structure placed on Lot 25 would <br />cut off the view of Mr. Johnson if he placed his home 60-70 feet <br />back from the curb line. Mr. Johnson responded that the trees <br />between his house and the adjoining lot would be cut off as a <br />buffer between the properties, and this was one of his considera- <br />tions. He also thought that it would not look proper for the <br />traffic coming off of Cottonwood Drive to see two homes that <br />varied so greatly as to the set-backs. The Board then proceeded <br />to findings of fact. <br /> <br /> 1. The Board found that the proposed variance would not be <br />injurious to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare <br />of the community since other homes in the area have different set- <br />backs and, in particular, this would have little to no impact <br />whatsoever on the area set out above. <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 several of the homes having dif- <br />ferent set-backs and due to the placement of any home on Lot 25 <br />having the potential of blocking a portion of the view on the <br />adjoining lot. <br /> <br /> 3. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning <br />ordinance would result in practicable difficulties in the use of <br />this property due to the topography limiting the size and type of <br />home that could be placed on the property. It was also pointed <br />out that the removal of trees could create an erosion problem on <br />this property which would have an adverse impact. A motion was <br />then made to grant the variance by Robert Tucker, seconded by <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br /> <br />