1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hDAPD ul'' 1\i, lil;;'I'MI;N'I' - M i rrui rr: December 2n, 19l14 Pnilo i •(1101: c) . linrdr:lrip is eans •c!•, by the e or_dinance and is not self-imposed. Mul ion car r•1( 11. u. X11324. liarvey/Sclrwahri grant_ a variance of 15 feet, more or less, from the required setback from both W. Main Street and STH 134. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Existing bar/residence is nonconforming as to required setbacks. 2) . Entry for bar, which is located in North end of building, could no be located in a complying location. 3) . Entry will not encroach any farther into required setbacks than the existing building. CONCLUSION: a) . Proven case of'unnecessary hardship. b) . Variance is not-contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. c) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. 5-0. #1214. Application for a Special Exception Permit by Town of Dunn; Roland Sarko P.E. presented plan proposed by the Town. Other concerned witnesses were Dean Guenther representing area residents and Jim C. Culles. Testimony was recorded. Motion by Harvey/Schwahn to hold action in abeyance until meeting of Janua , 24, 1985; the Board has several concerns and requests a response from the (10f town board addressing the following: 1. What is the proposed use of the area in question? The Board of Adjust ment cannot make a final decision on siltation - erosion control that may be necessary without a knowledge of the ultimate use of the pro- perty. . 2. What was the location of the natural topo line of the marsh prior to filling? 3. What effect will the proposed ditch channel clean-out have on this area? Motion carried. 5-0. #1256. Karem, Inc. - Medina. Schwahn/Miller to grant a variance of 10 feet, more or less, from required rear yard for the multi-family unit on proposed Lot #3 and variances of 30 feet from Maunesha Road, 42 feet from STH 19, more or less for the building addition in the SW corner of the property. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The existing plant facility, residences, truck unloading, drives, etc. , take up the majority of space on the property making it impossible to comply with all locational requirements. 2) . Building #1 on map was required by State Ag Department to wash-dow deadstock hauling vehicles. Building addition #2 was required by the Ag Department to securely enclose the pile of dead stock awaiting pro- cessing. ? 3) . Improvements on the property are all in the best interests of the public. •