Laserfiche WebLink
9. That the Applicants want to avoid the loss of mature trees (both elm and oak) on the property. <br /> <br />10. That the Applicants originally had requested a variance for a fifteen (15) foot front yard <br /> setback for the accessory structure. <br /> <br />11. That staff inspected the site on September 24, 2002, and determined that to avoid the <br /> variance, at least two mature trees would need to be removed. <br /> <br />12. That the variance requested is/is not the minimum variance which would alleviate the <br /> h~dship. <br /> <br />13. That if granted, the variance will/will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to <br /> adjacent property. <br /> <br />14. That if granted, the variance will/will not unreaSonably increase the congestion in the public <br /> street. <br /> <br />15. That if granted, the variance will/will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public <br /> safety. <br /> <br />16. That the special conditions do/do not result from the actions of the Applicant. <br /> <br />17. That if granted, the variance will/will not unreasonably diminish property values in the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> <br />18. That if granted, the variance will/will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />19. That, if granted, the variance will/will not grant the Applicant any special privileges that is <br /> denied to other owners of land in the same district. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by <br />and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br /> <br />and the following voted against the Same: <br /> <br />and the following abstained: <br /> <br />and the following were absent: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #02-10- <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />