Agenda - 08-20-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• • page 2 ' Board of Adjustment • . • August 6, 1984 059 that he built the garage by the N.C. BUilding Code which requires a 5' setback form .property lines. Mr. Roberts stated that the choices he had now were to (1) buy additional land from the Morris'; (2) build a one car garage; or (3) relocate the garage. Mr. Roberts stated that the Morris' did not wish to sell any land. Mrs. Morris stated that the reason they did not want to sell any land was the restrictive covenants which prohibited the subdivision of land in Country Lane Estates. Mr. Kizer presented a letter from the Morris' (Exhibit A) as evidence and allowed Mr. Roberts to read it-. • . Mr. Verrini, the builder and developer of the subdivision, said he could not understand the need for a 20' setback that, one or two feet was sufficient. ' • At this point, Dr. Kizer closed the public hearing. Findings of Fact: (1) that the alleged hardships or practical difficultles are unique and singular as. regards to the property of the person requesting the variance and are not those MOTION suffered in common with other property similarly located. Mr. Rees moved that the garage was constructed too close to the property line due to the inaction of the applicant. Mr. Pattishall seconded VOTE: Mofion carried unanimously. (2) Applicant can make no reasonable return on the property. • Mr. Suggs stated that he believed the property owner could make a reasonable use of the property and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. • MOTION: Suggs moved emotion to that effect. Mr. Rees seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. (3) That the variance, if allowed, will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by allowance of the varianc: MOTION: Mr. Rees moved that the inaction of the applicant created the problem. Mr. Pattishall seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. (4) That the variance is in harmony with and serves the general intent and purpose of this ordinance and the adopted Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Mr. Rees moved that the request was not in harmony wi:th the ordinance. Mr. Suggs seconded the motion. VOTE: The motion carried unanimously. (5) That allowing the variance will result in substantial justice being done. TION: Mr. Suggs moved that allowance of the variance would not result in substantial justice being done. Mr. Rees seconded the motion. VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.