Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> June 28, 1979 <br /> Page 6 <br /> a <br /> #688. Letter from Don McHugh requesting re-consideration of variance <br /> based on new lot line information. Re-evaluation by Zoning Department <br /> was explained by Bill Fleck. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to <br /> rescind action of August 24, 1978 and inform Mr. McHugh that a variance <br /> is no longer required. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. New lot line delineation created a new non-conforming location <br /> situation- whereby the house does not have the required 50 foot <br /> rear yard on either of the interior yards. A corner lot may <br /> utilize either interior yard for rear and with this option Mr. <br /> McHughs addition could be designated as being on a side with <br /> the side yard requirement of 10 feet and therefore in com- <br /> pliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> No variance required, motion carried. <br /> #590. Reversal and remand by Judge P. Charles Jones. Zoning Administrator <br /> was directed to inform concerned parties and schedule a public hearing. <br /> #766. Letter requesting re-consideration based on new topographical <br /> information that discloses flood levels would not exceed the airport <br /> road elevation of 923. 0. The higher flood profile elevation was shown <br /> to be caused by the spoil bank on the East side of the creek restricting <br /> the waters. H.U.D. profile is based on the higher restricted flood eleva <br /> tion. <br /> th, Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to rescind action of <br /> Y April 26, 1979 <br /> and to grant variance of 4.2 feet from the required flood protection <br /> elevation for Morey Airport property. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Topographic map discloses maximum flood elevation on Morey <br /> Airport property would not exceed Airport Road overflow <br /> elevation of 919-922.7 feet. <br /> 2. Terrain South of Airport Road is lower than Morey Airport pro- <br /> perty and slopes downward to 918-919 feet to the point where <br /> the creek flows eastward. <br /> 3. Proposed floor elevation of hanger is 923.5 which is at least <br /> 0.5 feet above the highest possible level of flood waters. <br /> CONCLUSIONS: <br /> a. Evidence discloses that flood protection elevation higher <br /> than 923.5 feet is not necessary. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> The meeting was adjourned. <br /> Phyllis Schwahn, <br /> Secretary <br />