Laserfiche WebLink
IIOARo) or AUJWt'I'MI,N'P <br /> Minutes - November 17, 1983 <br /> Page 2 <br /> r <br /> iir <br /> The garage shall be removed at the owners expense if future road improve- <br /> ment requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. The road is straight in this area and the garage does not cause <br /> a traffic hazard. <br /> 2. Moving the garage farther to the East from the proposed location <br /> would require excessive amount of fill for drive and could cause <br /> . problems with drainage-way. Farther West would block existing <br /> driveway and access to barn. Moving farther back from road would <br /> block equipment access to barn yard. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- <br /> terest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1209. Harvey/Schwahn to grant a variance of 7 feet, more or less from <br /> required left side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. The location ofthe residence was determined by an Andrew Dahlen <br /> survey done in 1956. Subsequently, other monumentation and surveys <br /> have been completed which changed the delineation of the lot lines <br /> causing the residence to have less than the 10 foot required side <br /> CV yard. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven cause of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 3) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- <br /> terest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1210. Schwahn/Harvey to grant a variance of 18 feet, more or less, from <br /> the required setback from the normal high waterline. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Other residents in the area are as close or closer to the water. <br /> 2. Addition will not encroach closer to the water than the existing <br /> basement entry and stairway. <br /> 3. Denial of variance would not provide a. greater degree of shoreland <br /> protection. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven case_ of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> 1211. Harvey/Schwahn to grant a variance of 45 feet, more or less, from <br /> the required setback from USH 14. <br /> The pertinent part of the barn shall be removed at the owners expense if <br /> future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing barn is non-conforming as to setback and additions to most <br /> of the barn would require a variance. <br />