Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br /> October 28, 1982 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 460 <br /> 3) . The building is not intended at this time for storage of items to be <br /> utilized in the construction of a residence. <br /> 4) . No use of the property has been established. <br /> 5) . Said "problem" is common to all vacant lots in a residential district. <br /> 6) . Granting of a variance would set a precedent which could be utilized <br /> by others. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> 2) . Proper procedure for remedy of "common condition". is amendment of <br /> Zoning Ordinance rather than a variance. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1107. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 24 feet, <br /> more or less, from required setback from Mid-town Road with the condition <br /> that the pertinent portion of the addition shall be removed at the owners <br /> expense if future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Additional 27 feet of right-of-way, 60 feet to center of road, was re- <br /> quired in city approval of certified survey for the property. Other <br /> properties in the area have the regular 33 feet to center of road. <br /> 2) . Garage location to West of residence prohibited by septic area; <br /> location to North prohibited by lot line. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> (111, 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 /> #1108. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 4.5 <br /> feet, more or less, from the required setback from S.T.H. 78 with the <br /> pertinent portion of the addition being removed at the owners expense if <br /> future road imrpovement requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Location of residence is such that the addition cannot he constructed <br /> without a variance; there will still be 62, plus, feet to highway. <br /> 2) . Other residences in the area are much closer to the road. <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 /> #1109. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 12 feet <br /> from required left side yard/road right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Roadway along left property line is unimproved and is actually a deep, <br /> sloping drainage swale. Intent is to request vacating of the road <br /> but procedure will take time to implement. <br /> 2) . Addition will be utilized for a jucuzzi for hydrotherapy of Mrs. <br /> Duesler's rheumatoid arthritis. Mrs. Duesler, otherwise, cannot take <br /> the winter weather. <br />