Laserfiche WebLink
ItOAItI) OP AU,IIJ;PJ'MI'N'!' - Minutes <br /> IJilu,,mbr,1 <br /> rage 4 <br /> ,') . (;1 ant III I I val I�lll�'r, wool I h , I11 r�rlrf't , .11l ca1.l)it.Laiy �7111C'I RIM F?Ilt Of <br /> the 'Zoning Ordinance without the benefit of due process. <br /> 3) . Une of l he 't xtra" building :;pace is not restricted to aprtment use <br /> only. A rec room facility or other local business use would be permitted <br /> subject to off-street parking regulations. <br /> 4) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1320. Schwahn/Harvey to grant a variance of 2.5 feet, more or less, from <br /> the required set-back from Commercial Avenue / Frontage Road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Lot is only 40 feet deep from Commercial Avenue required side yard, <br /> 2. 5 feet and 20 feet setback do not permit the garage without a variance. <br /> 2) . This entire area because of the 40 foot lots has many nonconforming <br /> buildings and several variances, similar to the one requested, have been <br /> granted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven case of unnecesary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1309. Durtschi Berry: Request for reconsideration. <br /> Schwahn/Harvey to deny reconsideratin; information submitted did not dis- <br /> close new evidence or unnecessary hardship. Location of an accessory build- <br /> ing is possible without a variance; Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1305. Miller/ Harvey grant a variance of 10 feet from the required setback <br /> from CTH TT which will allow location of the accessory building in alternate <br /> location as proposed by applicant. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Highway right-of-way is exceptionally wide and there are no improvement. <br /> intended in the foreseeable future. <br /> 2) . Inspection disclosed that a accessory building could be located on the <br /> lot without a variance but would require removal of some trees. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . A degree of unnecessary hardship is caused by the unutilized right- <br /> of-way. <br /> 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1214. Town of Dunn - Special Exception Permit. <br /> Area residents have expressed concern about lack of action and reported <br /> surface water run-off and ponding problems. <br /> Krushchke/Schwahn request the Town of Dunn to submit their proposed plan <br /> no later than January 24, 1985. Motion carried. 5-0. <br /> #1230. Stehr - Westport - request for extension. <br /> Submitted by Attorney Richard Lehmann. <br /> Schwahn/Harvey to grant extension contingent upon the following: <br /> 110 1) . Interim surface water run-off shall be diverted to the North side of <br /> the Stehr property with appropriate flow control measures to prevent ero- <br /> sion and siltation. <br />