Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> OCTOBER 21, 1977 <br /> Pg. 3 <br /> #608. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 7 feet <br /> from required setback from Muller Road as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Proposed building will be lcoated so as to maintain concentration <br /> of farm lot buildings and not use agricultural land. <br /> 2. Cannot be located farther back as it would not permit necessary <br /> equipment access to silo. <br /> 3. There is not traffic hazzard caused by the proposed building - <br />` road is straight with no near intersections. <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 /> Motion carried. <br /> #609. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a variance of 21 feet <br /> from the centerline of Branch Road and a variance of 10 feet from <br /> centerline of Elder Lane as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing building is located too close to both roads. <br /> 2. Additions will not extend beyond the existing side and front of <br /> the building and no traffic hazzard will be created. <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 /> Motion carried. <br /> IC; #610. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 5 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Facilities to be enlarged are in rear of church. Owner of pro- <br /> perty to rear will not sell any land; addition to South side Of church <br /> not feasible because of necessary parking area; addition to north <br /> side would not permit enlargement of kitchen area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> c. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #611. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to deny as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. There are other possible locations for the garage which would <br /> meet ordinance requirements. <br /> 2. Opposition' from town as to proposed setback. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. No hardship proven. 2. Not in best interest of the public. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #612. Motion by Voges second by Erickson to deny as per finding of fact. <br /> 1. House was constructed and Zoning Department records indicate <br /> required inspection for verification of location was not requested. <br /> 2. House could have been located in compliance with ordinance re- <br /> quirements. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. No unnecessary hardship - hardship was self-imposed. Motion <br /> carried. Dahlk abstaining. <br />