Laserfiche WebLink
1. That the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, <br />morals, and general welfare of the community and that the difference in grade <br />was nominal. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br /> <br />in the variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner and that <br />the change would not be noticeable. <br /> <br /> 3. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would <br />result in practical difficulties in the use of the property due to the contour <br />of the land. <br /> <br /> The Board then proceeded to findings of fact regarding the length to width <br />ratio of two and one-half times on lots 4, 5, 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. <br />The Board found: <br /> <br /> 1. That the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, <br />morals, and general welfare of the community due to the size of the lots and <br />the contour of the land. <br /> <br /> 2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br /> <br /> in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner due to <br /> the size of the lots allowing for more than the necessary square footage for <br /> building. <br /> <br /> 3. That the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would <br /> result in practical difficulties in the use of the property due to the contour <br /> of the land and the stream, and in fact could result in wasteland buffering the <br /> two properties if not allowed to be fully developed. <br /> <br /> The Chairman then opened the meeting up to a motion on the respective requests. <br /> Tilford Bailey made a motion based upon the findings of fact to grant the three <br /> (3) variances from development standards as set out herein, this was seconded by <br /> Warren Franklin and unanimously carried. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />