Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment - Minutes <br /> June 17, 1977 <br /> Pg. 2 <br /> IN FAVOR: Mrs. W. Otto OTHERS IN FAVOR: James Tierney OPPOSED: <br /> None TOWN BOARD: Morris Cooper, Chairman in favor - DNR no commni- <br /> cations. <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #572. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a 5 foot variance from <br /> required right side yard as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Proposed garage may not be located farther back on the property <br /> because of existing septic system. <br /> 2. Locating the garage on left side of property is not feasible <br /> because of existing access and design of house. <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 /> #573. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a 5 1/2 foot variance <br /> from 12 foot maximum height allowed as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Many boat houses in the area have been similarily constructed <br /> with screened in storage area on an upper level. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> A. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> (1, B. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> a <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #574. Motion by Dahlk second by Voges to grant a 6 1/2 foot variance <br /> from required rear yard and an 11 foot variance from required set- <br /> back from the centerline of CTH KP as per finding of fact: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming in location. <br /> 2. Addition is not closer to the County Highway than the existing <br /> 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 to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #575. Motion by Voges second by Dahlk to grant a variance of 12 feet <br /> from required rear yard as per finding of fact: <br /> 1: Zoning ordinance locational requirements for accessory buildings, <br /> pools etc. had been changed causing need for a variance for the <br /> pool as proposed. <br /> 2. Proposed location for pool is the only possible location for pool <br /> t because of bed rock and septic areas and utility easement. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> NI <br />