Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes - Board of Adjustments - Page 3 <br /> 1. Existing septic system prohibits location behind residence. <br /> 2. Existing storage shed cannot be moved. <br /> 3. Proposed building will utilize existing concrete slab. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Not contrary to public interest or rights of others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #445. Motion by Voges, second by Dahlk to deny: <br /> 1. A zoning permit for a conforming location has already been <br /> issued (#25480 4-9-76) <br /> 2. Other location on property is feasible. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #446. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant 6 feet variance from <br /> required setback as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Addition is not practical in any other location because of lot <br /> slope away from road and being a lake front lot. <br /> 2. Other residences on street will be closer to the street than <br /> the addition. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance required to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> B. Unnecessary hardship. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #447. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 19 feet <br /> from required setback from the right of way line of CTH K as per <br /> finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming. <br /> 2. Addition is to rear of residence. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance is required to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> B. Variance is not contrary to public interest or to rights of <br /> others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #449. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a variance of 18 feet <br /> from required setback from right of way line as per finding of fact <br /> and with the condition that no above ground structure/s, except fencing, <br /> will be built. <br /> 1. Permit for construction had been issued by town and the location <br /> okayed by town buildingiinspector. Applicant was unaware of <br /> county permit requirements. <br /> 2. Pool construction is completed would involve substantial work <br /> and probable destruction in order to comply. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Unnecessary hardship. <br /> B. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance without modification <br /> as far as possible without injustice to the individual. <br /> C. Variance is not contrary to public interest or to rights of <br /> others. <br /> Motion carried. <br />