1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EUARD Ur ADJUSTMENT - Minutes April 22, 1982 Page 3 2. Leveling of existing berm will prevent impounding of water. CONCLUSION: The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedi- mentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and health- ful conditions. #1056. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 14 feet from required setback from normal high waterline. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Existing building is non-conforming in location. 2. Addition will not be closer to water. 3. Other residences in the area are as close or closer to the water. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #1057. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to hold in abeyance pending information from FEMA. Motion carried. #1058. Motion by Purcell, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 31 feet from the required setback from C.T.H. "Z" . FINDING OF FACT: (OW 1. Removal of old existing garage will improve status of setback encroachment. 2. Existing residence is non-conforming as to setback and any addi- tion would require a variance. 3. Addition to rear or a separate location for the garage are not feasible because residence is set into a steep hillside. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 3. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried. #1059. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant the variance from required lot width and area with the condition that the proposed lot line be located equidistant between buildings #3 and #4. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Property is located in an area of many non-conforming lots some of which are substantially smaller than the proposed lots. 2. Strict enforcement.-of ordinance would not provide shoreland pro- tection because area was divided into small lots many years ago. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. ( 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. C Motion carried.