Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> - z - <br /> C. PUBLIC WELFARE: <br /> Finding: The deck is built and does block the view of the adjacent <br /> property. <br /> Conclusion: The addition of the three addi[ional feet blocks the view <br /> from the adjacent property, and is detrimental and injurious to the <br /> adjacent property to the south. z <br /> 0 <br /> -� <br /> D. COMPREHENSIVE PL.�N: � <br /> m <br /> Finding: 1968 Plan shows this area as Single Family Residential. The <br /> 1972 Update shows this area as Medium Density Residential. � � <br /> Conclusion: This area is residential and this type of rasidentia <br /> ., -i <br /> should be allowed to take advantage of the natural beauty of the Ci[y. c o <br /> (View of Port Gardner Bay.) m o <br /> -i c <br /> O 3 <br /> DECISION: DENY � Z <br /> Deny a Variance in the R-2 zone which would allow the cons[ruction of a � � <br /> � sundeck on the existing garage for the following reasons: <br /> � _ <br /> 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances Chat � � <br /> K <br /> apply to this proper�y. o � <br /> � n <br /> 2, The applicant caused his own hardship. = m <br /> m � <br /> 3. The Variance would block the view of [he adjacen[ property to the o �+ <br /> i o r <br /> South and be detrimental to those property vaives. T� <br /> 4. The Variance will effect the Comprehensive Plan. � � <br /> • m <br /> VOTE: FOR AGAINST ABSENT ABSTAIN n <br /> z <br /> — --i <br /> x <br /> Mr. Hoagland X n <br /> X Z <br /> Mr. Wilson -i <br /> Mr. Zook X � <br /> Mr. Barnett _ X �' <br /> Mr. Miller _ X Z <br /> 0 <br /> -� <br /> �, <br /> � <br /> m <br /> �� � �-�..P <br /> Chairman, Board of Ad�us[ ent <br /> 1 <br />