Laserfiche WebLink
the code required the Board to treat corner lots as requiring two (2) front <br />yard set backs and the ordinance requires a front yard set back to be 40 foot <br />from the property line. Steve Oschman indicated that in essence what Mr. Hastings <br />was requesting was a reduction of the set back requirement from 40 foot to 19 feet <br />for the front of the garage which would be facing Raesta Drive and also a <br />reduction of the rear yard set back requirements from 40 foot to 28 feet. <br /> <br /> Steve Oschman then proceeded to determine whether the request met with the <br />statutory requirements for allowing a variance from the development standards. <br />The Indiana Code was I. C. 36-7-4-918.5, Steve Oschman read from the statute as <br />follows: "A Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve or deny variances from the <br />development standards of the zoning ordinance. A variance may be approved under <br />this section only upon a determination in writing that (1) the approval will not <br />be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the <br />community; (2) the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included <br />in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and <br />(3) the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in <br />practical difficulties in the use of the property." With regards to the first <br />requirement the Board found that the size of the proposed garage was not unreasonable <br />and that its placement on the property resulting in a 19 foot front yard set back, <br />which was consistent with the existing set back of the home would not be injurious <br />to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The <br />Boards determination was the same with regards to the reduction of the rear yard <br />set back from 40 foot to 28 feet. <br /> <br /> With regards to the second requirement, the Board indicated that the <br /> construction of a garage was consistent with a district A classification and <br /> determined that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property would <br /> not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. <br /> <br /> The Board discussed the matter and determined that the petitioner would <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />