1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WWI) O1' AD,IIIFTMI:N'1' - Minutes I)ccc°mlx'r .1'), I')U3 Pogo r� Appeal #1220. Schwahn/Kruschke to grant the special exception permit with the following conditions: 1. Fill shall be maintained in a manner to prevent siltation and erosion. 2. When the fill extends to within 50 feet of the drainage ditch, filling shall be completed starting from the West end and progressively fillip' to the East. If a retention wall is not utilized, filling within 50 feet of drainage ditch should be sloped with a maximum of 3:1 slope and sodded or seeded with fast growing grasses. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Fill is necessary to provide a loading and parking area for sod farm operation. 2) . Without the fill, there would be a substantial incline to contend wit at the shoulder of the road causing a dangerous ingress and egress situation. CONCLUSION: 1) . The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. Motion carried. #1221. Schwahn/Kruschke to grant withdrawal as requested by applicant. • Motion carried. #1222. Miller/Kruschke to hold in abeyance to provide time for town board review. #1223. a) . Schwahn/Miller to sustain the interpretation of the Acting Zonin• Administrator b) . Kruschke/Schwahn to deny the requested variance from required shoreland setback. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Deck was constructed by the previous owner without a permit and in viola tion of the shoreland setback. A previous variance was denied because the hardship was self-imposed and an unnecessary hardship was not proven. 2) . Mr. Colletti was aware of all of the above facts when he purchased the property and in fact had agreed with the Zoning Department to correct the violation. A couple of re-design plans have been submitted to the Zonin. Department for review. 3) . Granting of the variance could cause a progressive degradation of the shoreland setback if neighbors availed themselves of the opportunity. 4) . The deck space could be fully utilized by re-design and incorporation of an "at grade" patio area. CON CLU STON: 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. 2) . Granting of the variance would not be in the public interest. Motion carried. i #1122. Endres - Dunkirk - Held in abeyance: Schwahn/Kruschke to deny requested rear yard variance. ti • . •ZA * 4" } y. a s4