Laserfiche WebLink
HOARD OF ADJW'1'MIsN'1' - MiituLut, <br /> June 28, 1979 <br /> Page 5 <br /> ArN <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proof of the existance of conditions required to grant a <br /> special exception was not satisfied. <br /> b. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is clearly to restrict <br /> day care centers to the residential districts. Such use in <br /> a B-1 Business District is therefore contrary to the intent <br /> of the Ordinance. <br /> c. Proper recourse would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance <br /> which would include day care centers in the B-1 District with <br /> specified conditions. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #793. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 23 feet <br /> from the required setback from front property line with the condition <br /> that suitable screening or enclosure be provided to prevent traffic dis- <br /> traction at the near intersection , subject to Board approval. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. The only unused area of the motel property is in the front. <br /> 2. Other motels along the beltline highway have pools. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Variance preserves the Zoning Ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #794. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 24 feet <br /> from the required rear yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. House has been non-conforming for many years and is located in <br /> an area where the majority, of buildings are non-conforming <br /> in location and have required variances for additions, altera- <br /> tions, etc. <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 publi. <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #796. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to grant a variance of 9 feet <br /> from the required setback from CTH "A". <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Addition is to existing residence, location otherwise is not <br /> practical. <br /> 2. Addition will be approximately 9 feet farther from road than <br /> the front of the residence. <br /> 3. Addition to either side of residence would, unless very small, <br /> require a variance. <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 publi. <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br />