JULY 15, 1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Thirdly, regarding the length to width ratios, it was pointed out that the contour of the land made this necessary in order to have extra large lots. The alternative would be to have left some of the land unimproved and use smaller lots. The Board then opened this up to remonstrators. Charles Nop had some questions regarding the set-backs and was advised that this would allow the building on the lot adjoining their property to be further away from them. Steve Dunam of 677 State Road 267 had some questions regarding drainage problems as did Mr. Nop. This was discussed between Mr. Lloyd and the parties; however, this has had no bearing regarding the issues before the Board. Mr. McConnell, an owner of the property directly north, was present but had no questions. The Board proceeded to discussion and regarding issue one, the side and front set- backs being reduced from forty (40) feet to twenty-five (25) feet on the front of lots 2, 22, and 3 and the side of lots 7, 19, and 20, the Board proceeded to its variance from development standards and made a finding: 1. That the approval of this variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community due to the size of the lots and the lay of the land. 2. That the use and value of the property adjacent to the property in- cluded in the variance will not be affected in a substantial adverse manner and in fact would probably be enhanced by the granting of the variance allowing some of the homes to be further away from them. 3. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property due to the contour of the land and the stream. The Board then proceeded to findings of fact regarding the issue of grade of the road from eight percent (8%) to 8.9102%. The Board found: -2 -