Do unique physical characteristics of the property prevent compliance with the ordinance?
AG: It’s already non-conforming. If that makes it unique – the propety is non-conforming with the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.417. And to grant the request would make the remnants of the division even more non-conforming. 2) Would the granting of the variance harm the public interests? AG: The particular request does not in itself harm the public interest. But establishing a precedent and allowing 114’ side lot dimension negates all the sections of the current zoning code. 3) Is unnecessary hardship present? AG: Unnecessarily burdensome or unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or render conformity of such restriction unnecessarily burdensome, neither of those apply, because failure to grant the variance doesn’t change anything. It’s useable now. It will be useable without. RZ states if the building burned down they could rebuild. LR motions to have Kelsey prepare a written decision and findings of fact and to adjourn this to March 20, 2007 where
