1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT i - Minutes - it') Meeting of December 17, 1981 PRESENT: Schwahn, Voges, Kruschke, Purcell, Harvey ALSO PRESENT: Enger, Fleck. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Voges at 7:30 p.m. in Room #224 - City/Co. Bldg. to hold a public hearing as published by Class II notice. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to approve the a minutes of November 19, 1981. Motion carried. ■ The notice was read and the public hearing was opened. I #1042. Appeal by Jerome Frautschi for a variance from maximum permitted height of an accessory building as provided by Section 10.05 (3) (b) , to permit construction of a garage at 3807 C.T.H. M, Lot #21, Assessor's Plat of Fox Bluff, Section 5, T7N - R9E, Town of Westport. IN FAVOR: R. Bennett Lord, Architect, representing J. Frautschi OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter; Town Board and Plan Commission; no objection. #1043. Appeal by Richard Danner for a variance from required side yard as provided by Section 10.05 (7) to permit an addition to residence at 4501 Fox Bluff Lane Part of Outlot #13, Assessor's Plat Fox Bluff, Section 5, T7N - R9E, Town of Westport. IN FAVOR: Don Reppen, interior designer; R. Danner OPPOSED: Dr. W. Langheim, neighbor COMMUNICATION: Letter; Town Board and Planning • Commission - no objection, with suggested conditions. The public hearing was closed. i #1042. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 2 1/2 ( feet from maximum permitted height for an accessory building with the condition that the building may not be utilized for a residential dwelling • FINDING OF FACT: 1. Building requires a variance because front, towards the interior of the lot, exceeds the height limitation. Building side facing outside of the lot, or towards neighboring property, complies with height provisions. 2. Lot is of substantial size 6 acres more or less, and building is approximately 60 feet from nearest adjacent residence to the West several hundred feet from nearest public road and 140 feet (approx. 1 ■ 1 from Ely property line. Building will not infringe on rights of others, aesthetic or otherwise. 3. Other height variances have been granted in this area primarily 1 because of large lot size and no effect on others. See #871 1 and #925. 1 CONCLUSION: i (,) a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. i c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public Iinterest. i Motion carried. I