Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> September 23, 1982 <br /> Page 4 <br /> (11114 morning to mid-afternoon sun which is the most effective for solar <br /> systems. <br /> 2. Any other location would be shielded by the house or receive only <br /> mid-afternoon to evening sun which is poor to ineffective for solar <br /> systems because of the angle of the sun to the system. <br /> 3. SS 66.031, Chapter 354 laws of 1981, provides that restrictions <br /> may not be placed on a renewable energy system if the restriction <br /> will result in a less efficient system. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. The system would not be feasible in any other location. Motion <br /> carried. <br /> #1098. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Applicant construct deck without a permit and without checking on loca- <br /> tional requirements. <br /> 2. Applicant stated that procurement of land to achieve compliance was <br /> possible but because of red tape and paper work they wanted to try <br /> the variance first. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecesary hardship. <br /> . 2. Other alternative to achieve compliance is available. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1099. Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. The garage, as per Zoning Ordinance, if moved approximately 10 feet <br /> to the rear could be located the proposed 4 feet from side lot line. <br /> 2. Inspection of property disclosed no topographical or other reason <br /> which would prevent complying location. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1100. Motion by Purcell, second by Harvey to grant a variance of 7 feet <br /> from required left side yard and 4 feet from required right side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Building was constructed before ordinance was amended to 10 foot side <br /> yard. <br /> 2. 6 foot utility easement on East side of property guarantees open space. <br /> 3. Building on adjacent property to the West was granted a side yard <br /> variance. <br /> 4. Complying location would result in unuseable areas of open space which <br /> could not be utilized for any permitted use ie: parking, truck dock, <br /> etc. <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 /> 4. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br />