Laserfiche WebLink
STAFF REPORT FOR VARIANCE APPEAL, PLANNING CASE NO. 438-96 <br /> PAGE THREE OF THREE <br /> d. . . .Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship." <br /> When considering this request, the Planning Commission found that by applying the setback requirement <br /> would not deprive the applicant of any rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district since <br /> all of the other properties in the same and similar zones would have to abide by the 30 foot setback <br /> requirement. Furthermore, the Planning Commission found that granting a variance to the applicant may <br /> arguably confer to the applicant a special privilege that is, in fact, denied to other owners of properties in the <br /> same zone or similar zones which must abide by the 30 foot setback requirement. <br /> A letter from Mr. Manke has been attached for your review and consideration. Mr. Manke will be in <br /> attendance at the work session for this item. <br />