Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF At)JliS'1'MEN'I' - Minutes <br /> June 28, 1')t34 <br /> Pigr' 5 <br /> The Swale utilizes both the Stehr ro ert <br /> p p y and the adjacent property and does <br /> not have the capacity Lo handle the projected run-off. The Warzyn Engineering <br /> report states that open channel dimensions would be a minimum depth of 2 <br /> feet, a 4 foot bottom width and 3:1 slope on banks, for an overall width of <br /> approximately 16 feet. The report states that because of the expected veloci y <br /> of the run-off the channel would be subject to erosion if it were not lined <br /> in some manner. <br /> 4) . The Board of Adjustment immediate concerns are: <br /> a) . Potential new erosion that could be caused surface water run-off. <br /> h) . Adverse effects of diversion of run-off onto adjoining properties. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Some method of adequately handling the surface water run-off is <br /> imperative because of the run-off diversion potential of starting a <br /> new erosion problem. <br /> 2. The problem cannot wait for state park plans to be developed. Tentati ,ely <br /> the park was to be open by 1986 but plans are just now being formulate ; <br /> and the situation and timing is much too uncertain to rely upon. <br /> 3. Immediate control of run-off is necessary and an approved engineering <br /> plan with a specified project completion date will accomplish this <br /> purpose. <br /> 4. The project as planned, with specified conditions; will'not result in <br /> substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, <br /> impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. <br /> (111, Motion carried. <br /> #1242. LaRue - Sun Prairie <br /> Harvey/Schwahn granted a variance of 11 1/2 feet from the required setback from <br /> LaRue Lane. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing septic system and alternate area prevent the building from bein. <br /> located closer to road. <br /> 2. Location West of the residence would not be possible unless a variance <br /> were granted and the town has refused and. access on this side because <br /> of the steep bank. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1247. Malmquist - Verona <br /> Applicant has revised plans and will move building to a complying location. <br /> Schwahn/Miller to deny variance; motion carried. <br /> #1256. Karen, Inc. - Medina <br /> Schwahn/Harvey to hold in abeyance, the Board has not had the opportunity to <br /> inspect the site; motion carried. <br /> co) <br />