Laserfiche WebLink
BOAF.D OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> October 25, 1979 <br /> Page 4 <br /> drN <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 /> d. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #830. Motion by Voges, second by Dahik to approve a variance of 12 feet <br /> from required setback from Maple Grove Road; motion failed 3 to 2. Motion <br /> by Purcell, second by Schwahn to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Terrain on North side of the garage is level enough to accomodate <br /> the garage with minimal filling. <br /> 2. Access to the garage as proposed is from the East side and complying <br /> location will not cause any more of a problem. <br /> 3. There is not topographic or other hardship preventing a complying <br /> location for the garage. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> Unnecessary hardship not proven, motion carried. <br /> #831. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 49 <br /> feet from required setback from S.T.H. 92 and a variance of 3 1/2 feet <br /> from required setback from Jackson Street. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> (111W 1. Building is to be utilized as a concession stand and equipment <br /> storage for the park. Any location, outside of the playing field, <br /> which would serve the intended purposes would require a setback <br /> variance. <br /> 2. Most of the buildings in Mount Vernon on Highway 92 are as close <br /> or closer to the road. <br /> 3. Highway 92 is straight in this area and proposed building will not <br /> create a traffic hazard <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 /> Motion carried. <br /> #832. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. There are no topographic or other problems which would prevent <br /> a complying location. <br /> 2. The Zoning Ordinance provides that a building may be located as <br /> close as 20 feet from the front property line. <br /> 3. Aesthetics or blocking of a neighbors view may not be construed <br /> as an unnecessary hardship. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. <br />