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 the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. <br /> <br />13. That if granted, the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br /> property. <br /> <br />14. That if granted, the variance will not unreasonably increase the congestion in the public <br /> street. <br /> <br />15. That if granted, the variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. <br />16. That the special conditions do not result from the actions of the Applicant. <br /> <br />17. That if granted, the variance will not unreasonably diminish property values in the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> <br />18. That if granted, the variance will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />19. That, if granted, the variance will not grant the Applicant any special privileges that is denied <br /> to other owners of land in the same district. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member <br />Reeve, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br /> <br /> Chairperson Nixt <br /> Board Member Johnson <br /> Board Member Reeve <br /> Board Member Kociscak <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: <br /> <br /> None <br /> <br />and the following abstained: <br /> <br /> None <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #02-10-253 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />