Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

23. Without the variances as to lot size and width, Mr. Rhode would suffer the particular hardship of not being able to use his residential lot for residential purposes. 24. Granting the variances as to lot size and width will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. a. There will be no threat to public health occurring because of excessive crowding of private sewage dis- posal systems. b. One more dwelling in tho already developed area will not materially increase the density, as long as the present carriage house is removed first, prior to construction. c. Adequate open spaces for access in case of fire will insure that there will be no increased danger to the safety of the neighborhood. d. No impairment of morals will rc:;ult from the pro- posed construction o` the single family dwelling. e. The existence of one more dwelling in the area will not materially increase the traffic in the area. 25. Requiring Mr. Rhode to build in a location further back tnan proposed would amount to a practical difficulty as it would have a deleterious effect on the property values of all concerned and on the strength and durability of the dwell- ing because of soil conditions. 26. The same conditions outlined above apply to grant- ing a variance as to the •erage set back" rule, to -wit: it will not be contrary t,e intent of the Zoning Code and there will be no adverse _Ltects. 27. The planning commission, after h0dring testimony, recommended to the council that Jack Rhode be granted a vari- ance from the "average set back" requirement, which would allow him to build as proposed. 28. Any variance for the lot should not be granted unless carriage Douse is first removed. The above findings of fact are in part based upon and dependent upon the following findings of fact: A. That the single family residential home is to be built in a location noted on Exhibit A attachk.-d hereto and that prior to any construction that a survey be conducted