Laserfiche WebLink
September 27, 1979 <br /> Page 7 <br /> burdoned, the pertinent variance shall be rescinded, thereby requiring <br /> compliance with the lot area and/or parking provisions of the Ordinance. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Senior citizen housing should not utilize all the required lot <br /> area and parking. <br /> 2. Additional land, if required, is available by first option to <br /> purchase. <br /> 3. Required parking would cause unnecessary loss of green-space. <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 /> #827. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 11 <br /> feet from required setback from Elder Lane. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Addition is behind front of the existing building and will not <br /> encroach farther into setback. <br /> 2. Existing building is non-conforming as to setback. <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 /> 1 CY <br /> #778. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 2 1/2 <br /> feet from required setback from the front property line and a variance <br /> of 1 1/2 feet from the maximum height. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Location of large oak tree and septic system precluded any other <br /> location of the residence. Complying location would require cutting <br /> of tree. <br /> 2. Deck height is required because of slope of lot. <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 /> #590. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to accept all 22 exhibits <br /> which were presented at the public hearing. Motion carried. <br /> Board jurisdiction on the North side of the creek was re-affirmed by con- <br /> sensus of the board based upon staff copy of the U.S.G.S topographical <br /> map of the area which indicated that all drainage in the area was even- <br /> tually towards and into the creek. <br />