Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> October 26, 1978 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 2 Truck access to the dock shall be from the South end only. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #717. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to deny requested variance. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Zoning permit #28596 was issued as per site plan submitted which <br /> indicated a setback of 100 feet would be maintained from the center <br /> of USH 14. <br /> 2. On the first inspection applicant was verbally notified by the <br /> zoning inspector that construction was very tight to required <br /> setback. <br /> 3. Building was reduced from 60' to 56' width to provide additional <br /> room but builder inadvertantly set it too close to the road pro- <br /> viding additional space to the back of the building which was not <br /> needed. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> Self-imposed hardship, ie: hardship resulting from inattention, <br /> mistake, inadvertant error, oversight and the like does not con- <br /> stitute unnecessary hardship. Motion carried. <br /> #718. Motion by Purcell second by Voges to grant a variance of 20 feet <br /> from required setback from the right-of-way of CTH "B". <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Additional right-of-way was purchased which caused existing resi- <br /> dence to be non-conforming as to setback even though it is 75 feet <br /> from centerline. <br /> 2. Proposed addition will be farther from road than existing resi- <br /> dence and will not create a traffic hazard. <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 pub- <br /> blic interest. <br /> d. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #719. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to grant a variance of 15 feet <br /> from the required setback from centerline of USH 12-18. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing residence was built before ordinance was effective and <br /> is totally non-conforming as to setback. No addition could be <br /> made without a variance. <br /> 2. Addition will be approximately 44 feet farther back from highway <br /> than front of residence and will not constitute a traffic hazard. <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. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #720. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to deny requested variances. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. There is ample area on the lot to locate the building without re- <br /> quiring a variance. <br />