Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment - Minutes <br /> September 27, 1979 • <br /> Page 4 <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 /> #815. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 31 1/2 <br /> feet from required rear yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Residnece was built by contractor for himself and not for the Hert: 's. <br /> 2. Rear yard area drops sharply down to a drainage gulley and cannot <br /> be utilized without a deck or terracing of some sort. <br /> 3. The land directly to the rear of Herte's property is dedicated par <br /> land and may not be used otherwise,thereby preserving the intent <br /> for open space. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecesary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> c. Hardship was not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #816. Motion ,by Voges, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 9 <br /> feet 1 1/2 inches from required setback from centerline of U.S.H. 51. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> (11, 1. Existing building is non-conforming as to setback. <br /> 2. Old entry was beyond repair and had to be replaced. <br /> 3. New entry does not encroach farther into setback area than the <br /> old one. <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 /> #817. Motion by Krushcke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 2 1/2 <br /> feet from required left side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Addition to garage is necessary to permit changing of door and <br /> driveway to alleviate snow plowing problem with existing entry. <br /> Said re-location of driveway was suggested by the Town Board. <br /> 2. Proposed addition is in line with the existing residence and will <br /> not encroach farther into the side yard. <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 not self-imposed. <br />