Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> October 26, 1978 <br /> Page 5 <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Residence was squeezed by CTH and shoreland setback requirements <br /> and was re-designed to fit buildable area on the lot as previously <br /> allowed by 'the Board of Adjustment (2) . window projects outwardly <br /> less than permitted roof overhang. (3) . Steps could be provided <br /> without requiring a variance by terrace design of landscape and <br /> constructing step at or below grade. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> Window variance - a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. <br /> 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 /> Step variance - Unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried. <br /> #724. Motion by Schwahn second by Voges to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. There is ample area on property to locate the garage without <br /> requiring a variance. <br /> 2. An existing building on adjacent property would only be 4 - 5 feet <br /> from proposed garage causing a fire safety hazard and lessening <br /> of required side yard open space. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried. <br /> #725. Motion by Voges second by Purcell to grant a variance of 32 feet <br /> from required setback from center of STH 78. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Parcel is only 92 feet deep: a variance would be required for any <br /> reasonable size garage. <br /> 2. Building will be located behind the residence. <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 the the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #726. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to grant a variance of 7 feet <br /> from required setback from the center of Berlin Road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing residence is very close to required setback. <br /> 2. Family room addition is not possible in other location without re- <br /> design of the interior of the house. <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 /> #727. Motion by Schwahn second by Voges to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br />