Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES - PAGE 3 <br /> 4. Concrete sea-wall is not actually necessary to prevent erosion. <br /> a. Lake has minimal or no through current and level is con- <br /> trolled by dam. <br /> b. lake is small and wind/ice erosion is minimal. <br /> c. wall appears to be only for convenience of the property owner. <br /> Motion carried. . <br /> #522. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a variance of 9 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. C.T.H. M right-of-way extends 15 feet farther in on this property <br /> than it does to the west of the property. This fact along with the <br /> required 42 feet setback causes a loss of rear yard area in which <br /> to construct a deck. <br /> Additional land, to the reap is not available as the property is <br /> State owned. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> , Motion carried. <br /> #523. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 11 feet <br /> as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. lot slopes downward to lake which would necessitate extensipg <br /> filling to keep garage level with road otherwise drive would slope <br /> ILIP down into garage causing ice/snow and drainage problems. <br /> 2. Others in the area have been granted similar variances. <br /> CONCLUSIONS: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #524. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to hold in abeyance until <br /> November 19, 1976. Board could not make determination of variance neces- <br /> sary as no survey or other means of identifying lot line location had been <br /> submitted. Therefore, lot lines must be verified which more than likely <br /> . will require a survey. Motion carried. <br /> #525. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 23 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. existing house is located towards rear of lot. <br /> 2. proposed bathroom addition is located in only feasible location. <br /> 3. existing bathroom is very small and not suitable for year-round <br /> use. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> qv interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> a._ <br />