Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> SEPTEMBER 16, 1977 <br /> PAGE 3 <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 /> #603. Motion by Voges second by Erickson to grant a variance of 22 feet <br /> I <br /> from required setback from normal high water line as per finding of <br /> fact: <br /> 1. Existing house is located up to permitted building line. <br /> 2. Steep slope of lot prevents addition to house away from lake or <br /> to the sides. <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 /> #604. Zoning of Ness property to RH-1 has been approved - proposed <br /> • building is permitted in the RH-1 District; no Board action necessary. • • <br /> #605. Motion by Voges, second by Erickson to grant a variance of 27 feet <br /> from required rear yard, as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Septic system prevents the house being located farther from the <br />` rear lot line. <br /> 2. House will utilize solar energy and to locate at lower elevation <br /> at front of lot will make this impossible because the high elevation <br /> at the rear of the property will shade the solar collectors on the <br /> roof of the house. <br /> 3. Purchase of additional land to the rear is not possible - farmer <br /> doe°s'wish to sell. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #606. Motion by Voges second by Erickson to grant variance of 19 feet <br /> from required setback from centerline of CTH K as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing house is too close to CTH K. <br /> 2. Basement is directly under house and will not be closer to road. <br /> 3. All adjacent buildings are as close or closer to the road. <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 /> The meeting was adjourned. <br /> William Voges <br /> Secretary pro-tem <br />