Laserfiche WebLink
3. The board indicated that <br />for a variance arises from some <br />involved since the property can <br />single family dwellings. <br /> <br /> 4. The board found that there <br />proven. <br /> <br />they could not find that the need <br />condition peculiar to the property <br />be used for its present zoning of <br /> <br />has been no unnecessary hardship <br /> <br />item on the agenda which was <br />for a variance from development <br /> <br />standards to allow the construction of a garage on their property <br />at 1068 Delwood Drive. Mr. Bishop advised that the property was <br />presently zoned A-residential. The board found that the code required <br />a twelve foot sideline set-back and a forty foot rear yard set-back. <br />The request was to allow a reduction to a five foot sideyard set-back <br />and a four foot rear yard set-back. The board concurred that a <br />majority of the properties in this area have garages that are only <br />approximately five feet off the property line. The board then looked <br />at I.C. 36-7-4-9-18.5 to determine if the variance met the development <br />standards of the statute. <br /> <br /> 1. The board found that the approval would not be injurious <br /> <br />to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the <br />community and that this is a residential area and the construction of <br />a garage is an accessory use in said areas. <br /> <br /> --3-- <br /> <br />and unanimously carried. <br /> <br /> The board then moved on to the next <br />the petition of Delmos and Mary Bishop <br /> <br /> 5. The board did feel that the approval did not substantially <br />interfere with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Based on a lack of meeting all five requirements Don Barry moved <br />to deny the application. The motion was seconded by Warren Franklin <br /> <br /> <br />