Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Planning Commission/V 97-20 <br /> November 25, 1997 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • Recommendation <br /> It is recommended that the Board of adjustment deny this variance request <br /> based of the following findings: <br /> 1. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE <br /> HARDSHIP. <br /> 2. THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA AT THE SAME ELEVATION TO HIGHWAY 10 AS <br /> THE APPLICANT; THEREFORE,THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES <br /> WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH <br /> ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF, OR APPLICABLE TO, OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES IN THE <br /> SAME AREA. <br /> 3. SINCE THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THE <br /> APPLICANT, THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD <br /> NOT DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME <br /> DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. <br /> 4. SINCE THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THE LIMITED VISIBILITY FROM HIGHWAY 10, THE <br /> SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE <br /> PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. <br /> 5. A SIGN THE SIZE THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER <br /> FOR THIS AREA. <br /> • <br /> s:\planning\scott\v97-20.doc <br />