Laserfiche WebLink
-c <br /> July 26, 1919 <br /> Page 5 <br /> #802. Motion by Schwahn second by Krushchke to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Lot slopes upward to the SW 1/4 but there are no topographic <br /> problems which would prevent conforming location of the resi- <br /> dence. <br /> 2. Residence would not have to be of an unusual design in order <br /> to meet locational requirements. <br /> 3. Relocation -of C.T.H. "D" (Fish Hatchery Road) is not certain and <br /> has been pending approximately 10 years. Decision of Board must <br /> be based on existing factors not on possibilities. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Unnecessary hardship not proven; motion carried. <br /> #803. Motion by Purcell second by Voges to grant a 12 foot variance <br /> from required setback from normal high waterline. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Residence is located in an older plat and the houses on both <br /> sides as well as several others are located closer to the water. <br /> 2. Enforcement of setback on only one residence would not afford <br /> protection of shoreline. <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 necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #804. Motion by Purcell second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 1 foot <br /> 9 inches from required rear yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Other properties in this area have boat houses closer, and in <br /> fact, projecting over the rear property line and the water. <br /> 2. The area was built up before the shoreland was effective and <br /> enforcement of setback on only one would not afford protection <br /> of shoreland. <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 /> #805. Motion by Voges second by Krushchke to grant a variance of 7 <br /> feet from required rear yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Residence was constructed prior to Ordinance requirements on a <br /> pie-shaped shallow lot. No addition could be built without a <br /> variance because of road setback, side or rear yard requirements. <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 />