Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> August 26, 1982 <br /> Page 3 <br /> #1093. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to deny; neither the applicant <br /> nor agent appeared at the public hearing. Motion carried. <br /> #1094. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 33 feet <br /> from required setback from the normal high waterline and 3 feet from total <br /> side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Residence is existing and non-conforming in location, it was one of <br /> the first cottages constructed on the lake. Additions will not <br /> cause structure to be more non-conforming. <br /> 2) . Improvements are required to protect water pump area and provide <br /> a secure, weather-proof entry. <br /> 3) . No addition to the residence could be constructed without a variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> 3) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1095. Motion by Harvey, second by Kruschke to hold in abeyance at the <br /> request of the town. Motion carried. <br /> #1085. R. Baumel Town of Dunn, held inabeyance from public hearing of <br /> July 22, 1982. Mr. Baumel submitted site plan showing specific location of <br /> trees but did not change proposed location of the garage. <br /> Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Field inspection by the Board disclosed that there was adequate area <br /> to construct the garage in the location of the parking area without <br /> a variance. <br /> 2) . Topographic problems observed were not severe enough to constitute <br /> unnecessary hardship. The small rock wall by the parking area could <br /> be replaced by a wall of the garage; the location would not require <br /> major excavation. <br /> 3) . Location of the garage in the parking area should not cause any <br /> more harm to the existing trees than Mr. Baumel's proposed location. <br /> 4) . No side yard variances have been granted to others in this area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. <br /> #1088. Don Wheeler - Dunn; Mr. Wheeler objected to the second condition <br /> placed on his variance; Zoning Staff forwarded his objection to the Board. <br /> Motion by Harvey, second by Purcell to revise the wording of the condition <br /> as follows: <br />