Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTPS - PAGE 5 <br /> •■•••\ #503. Motion by Dahlk, secor(1 by Voges to grant variance of 15 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Shallow depth of lot and septic required in front yard create <br /> squeeze for building site. <br /> 2. Buildable location would cause destruction of several good trees <br /> and limit construction to a minimal, box, house. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #504. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant a 5 foot variance from <br /> required setback from centerline of S.T.H. 19 as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Building is located at the required setback from centerline of <br /> Highway 19. • <br /> 2. Roof overhang and balcony will not interfere with vision or cause <br /> a traffic hazzard. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> • <br /> #505. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 22 feet <br /> from the centerline of Jacobs Road as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming. <br /> 2. Addition will not extend closer to the road. <br /> 3. Addition is not feasible in any other location. <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 /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #506. Motion by Dahlk, second by Voges to grant a variance of 33 feet <br /> from centerline of Susen Lane as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Proposed building cannot be located between the two existing <br /> buildings because it is a tobacco shed requiring drive-thru access <br /> for equipment. <br /> 2. Locating the proposed building beyond the existing buildings would <br /> regni re use of good agricultural land. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> C. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br />