1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes May 27, 1982 Page 4 C FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The sewer lift station is for public benefit. 2) . The project was designed and supervised by General Engineering Co. , Inc. , Portage WI. 3) . Fill will have adequate slope to prevent erosion. CONCLUSION: 1) . The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by ero- sion, sedimentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. #1065. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to deny: FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Site plan submitted by R. Bates for the zoning permit showed a 33 foot setback from front property line (30 foot minimum required) and a 10 foot minimum required left side yard. Mr. Bates testified that he was aware of location requirements. 2) . Mr. Bates testified that he and Mr. Meyer, the owner, located a back lot stake and utilizing this and the neighbor's lot stakes they measured and found wooden stakes which they assumed were the correct front lot stakes. They were not cer- tain who had placed the wooden stakes. Location of residence was determined by reference to the wooden stakes. 3) . Mr. Bates testified that he was aware that 1st inspection was not signed off on permit card, but, construction was continued because of the winter weather. 4) . Mr. Bates testified that side deck design was changed without contacting the Zoning Department. Said change caused the en- croachment into the required left side yard. 5) . Mr. Bates testifies that hardship was self-imposed and a re- sult of their own mistakes. 6) . Location survey #C-1247 (1)-1 by Alden G. Kaukl and dated February 12, 1982, was based on stakes he found on the site; he did not set any new stakes. Therefore, these correct lot stakes were available for use by Mr. Bates and Mr. Meyer. 7) . Inspection of the property by the Board of Adjustment disclosed no topographical, or other, hardhsip which may have prevented location of the residence in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION: This is a very explicit case of "self-imposed" hardship: 1) . Location of residence was based on erroneous, unverified, wooden stakes.. 2) . A decision was made to continue with construction in spite of the fact that the 1st inspection, which verifies location, had not been completed. 3) . Side yard encroachment was caused by a design change which had not been submitted for approval.