Laserfiche WebLink
use in the R3 district. In effect the house could have more <br /> occupants than in a duplex,unit. <br /> We urge rejection of variance appeal # 2964 because: <br /> 1 . The petitioner did not show "hardship" as defined by the Board of <br /> Adjustment. <br /> 2. The lot is so sub-standard in width, area and side yard <br /> requirements that it can't even comply when given the breaks of <br /> section 10.16 General Provisions and exceptions (5) 2 , sideyards <br /> page 32 revised 4-30-97. <br /> 3. The lot is so sub-standard that to provide a second parking space, <br /> the peititoner will have to carve that space out of the front yard. <br /> This may be fine for her and now, but it in effect destroys the future <br /> single family quality of the house. <br /> 4. The three-member majority of the plan commission ignored the <br /> Board of Adjustment guidelines on judging variances, refusing to <br /> give these guidelines any consideration in the variance appeal # <br /> 2964, apparently approving the zoning variance simply because the <br /> zoning petition had been approved. <br /> Steve Glass, Chair <br /> Blooming Grove Plan Commission <br />