1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 2( , .I '1/'.). Page 6 #806. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to deny. FINDING OF FACT: 1. The existing property, a total of 3 lots, two of which are utilized by a residence, could be divided into two buildable parcels, conforming in width and area, facing either Memphis or Thurber. Said division would not require a variance. 2. Division of property into 3 lots, non-conforming in both width and area, does not conform with existing R-3 Zoning intent of Ordinance. 3. Denial of variance does, not deprive owner of existing use of property or the' sale of a`portion of the property. 4. No specific reason nor hardship was submitted proving the necessi k of division into 3 non-conforming lots. CONCLUSION: a. Unnecessary hardship was not proven; motion carried. #755. Revised soil erosion and project plan submitted Board action not required. Plan has been submitted to S.C.S. for their approval. #791. Letter from Town of Vienna expressing their approval of J. Marble's appeal for a variance. No new evidence pertinent to appeal was submitte• and no action was taken by Board of Adjustment. Zoning Department was directed to respond to the town and provide them with the Board's reason- for denial of the variance. #740-747. Letter from William Pfeiffer requesting: 1. Modification of grading plan by removal of the words "boundary of activity" and "undisturbed area". 2. Extension of expiration dates of 740 and 747. Motion by Dahlk second by Purcell to delete the wording as specified by #1 above and to grant a 1 year extension to expiration dates of #740 & #747. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Deletion of wording and extension of expiration date will not change intent of special exception permit nor the variance. Intent was to relocate berm and provide larger building area under a specified soil erosion plan. Motion carried. #770. Letter from J. Gordon Hale requesting re-consideration of varianc: . Motion by Purcell second by Kruschke to grant a 4.3 foot variance from required left side yard to permit construction of a porch addition to the residence and subject to compliance on pool deck violation. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Addition will not extend beyond the end wall of the residence. 2. House was constructed before Zoning Ordinance requirements were effective on April 7, 1942. 3. Similar variances have been granted to others. 4. No opposition to the variance was expressed at the public hearing CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried.