Laserfiche WebLink
-6- <br /> <br />of the home being plaoed~ <br /> <br /> The Board then opened up the meeting to ~ny remonstrators. Steve and <br /> <br />Cheryl Edwards spoke to the petition and stated that they felt it wonld be an <br />improvement to hsve a home of thus nature placed on the ground. The Bo~rd them <br />discussed the variance and proceeded to f~nd~ngs of ~act. <br /> <br /> The Board made thc following findings ef fact: 1) that the approval of <br /> <br />the variance from the sub-division control ordinance, the set-backs, and the mobile <br />home s~ecial exception proced~re would not be injurious to the public bea]th~ <br />safety, morals and general welfare of the community in l~ght of other housing Jn <br />the area snd the fsct that there had been a prior home located on this ground. <br />?) That the use and value of the srem adjacent to the property ~ncluded in the <br />variance ~ou]d not be affected ~n a substantially adverse m~nner by the variance <br />~s granted due to the fact that a prior home hsd been on this property and that <br />the proposed home would be an improvement tn the ho~e which had burned. 3) Thst <br />the strict applJcatiom of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result ~n <br />practical d~fficu]ties in the use of the property since the destruction of the <br />prior home which hsd been grandfsthered in under the prior ordinance would make it difficult <br />to return the ~and to ~ts primr use. The Board then entertained a motion on said <br />variance. A motion was made by Wendell Thaler tm grant said motioa, seconded by <br />Steve Oscbman and passed unanimously. There being no further b,~siness to com~ <br />be~orm the Bosrd the meeting was adjourned. <br /> <br />Chairma.n <br /> <br /> <br />