Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> August 25, 1983 <br /> Page 5 <br /> (10, #1176. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of one <br /> foot from required side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. New construction will utilize existing, non-conforming foundation. <br /> 2. Other residences and buildings in the area are as close to lot lines <br /> • because of the narrow width of the lots. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Proven case of unnecesary hardship. <br /> b) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1177. Motion by Harvey, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 10 feet <br /> from required setback from Skyline Drive. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Location of garage is restricted by residence and access to lake side <br /> of the property. <br /> 2. Other accessory buildings in the area are as close or closer to the lake. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1178, Motion by Kruschke, second by Harvey to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Shed was constructed without permits. <br /> 2. Field inspection disclosed that there is ample area to locate the buildin• <br /> in compliance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1179. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 50 feet <br /> from the required setback from normal high waterline. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Parcel is shallow in depth (front to back) and required setbacks from roa• <br /> and stream leave no permitted buildable area unless a variance is granted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1180. Motion by Harvey, second by Kruschke to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Substantial part of the deck is in compliance with required sideyard. <br /> 2. Deck was constructed without a zoning permit. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> b) . Hardship was self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1181. Motion by Purcell, second by Harvey to grant a variance of 31 feet <br /> 41■'• from required rear yard. <br />"aft, <br />