Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment - Minutes <br /> September 22, 1983 <br /> Page 4 <br /> (NW <br /> #1186. Motion by Schwahn second by Purcell to grant a variance of 17 fe( <br /> from maximum permitted height. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing sign is to be replaced with improved sign at same height <br /> New sign must comply with maximum permitted height which is 17 fe( <br /> lower than existing sign. <br /> 2. A sign at the maximum permitted-height; is not visible coming fro: <br /> North because of the rise in elevation of I-90 which blocks the s: <br /> 3. Another motel across highway 12 has a sign with a height comparab: <br /> . the proposed sign. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible w: <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the _public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1187. Motion by Harvey second by Purcell to grant a variance of 44 fE <br /> more or less, from the required setback from S.T.H. 19 with the conditio: <br /> the addition shall be removed at-the owners expense if future road improl <br /> requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. The addition will be in line with existing buildings on the proper <br /> 2. Slope of land and existing structures preclude any other location <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> terest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1188. Motion by Schwahn second by Harvey to grant a variance of 10 fee <br /> from required setback from Morris Park Road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. A variance for garage had been granted, but a covered walkway on : <br /> side was not included. <br /> 2. Addition of walkway does not change the basis of granting the pric <br /> ance for the garage. <br /> 3. Several variances for garages have been granted in this area becai <br /> - the steep slope from road down to the lake. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible w <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 3) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1189. Motion by Purcell, second by Schwahnto grant the permit as per pi <br /> plan with the conditions that : 1) . The excavated areas shall be fenced <br /> Lre reflective markers posted to warn motorists. 2) . The permit is subject <br /> review by the Board of Adjustment at 9 month intervals. <br /> • <br />