1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ito APP or Al)]!', I'MPN'I' - MinuleH October 22, 1981 Page 3 4. Intersections should be as free from distractions as is possible to prevent traffic hazard. CONC LI IS[ON: Sign "A" : Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Sign "B" : Proven case of unnecessary hardship. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possi- ble without injustice to applicant. Motion carried. #1033. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 4 feet 6 inches from required setback from Sugarbush Avenue. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Sugarbush Avenue is not a thru-street but is actually a dead-end street utilizied for a boat landing facility and parking lot. 2. Proposed addition cannot be located farther back from street because of existing septic tank. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #740. Request by William Pfeiffer and V. Kolberg for reconsideration of design specifications of permit on Lot #196 and part of Lot #197 (1111, E. Hill Addition to Belmar, Section 5, Fitchburg. Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to: 1 . Eliminate requirement that mulch be punched into soil. 2. Accept berm design as constructed. 3. Condition: the berm is ccnsidered as temporary and the soil erosion system including the berm and the drain tile are subject to review and re-design, if necessary, when applications are submitted for other improvements or construction of buildings on the property. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Inspection on October 13, 1981 disclosed that all other specifica- tions of permit had been complied with. 2. Inspection disclosed that a good cover of grass was established and to punch in mulch at this time would cause more damage than assistance. 3. Berm as constructed deviates from (a) . bank slope, and (b) . width at base, as specified by permit. (a) . Bank slopes, while being steeper than specified , are still ade- quate to maintain grass without siltation or erosion. The berm at cross s 'c•lion ti [ was to Le ront.ourccl Int.() t_h,' existing grace so the depth (top to bottom) is not relevant.. In fact, the only difference would he that the slopes will require mowing by hand rather than by lawn or garden tractor. (b) . Width at base is 1. 5 to 3. 5 feet less than specified. The 3. 5' less is at cross section #1 where the berm runs parallel with flow of water, therefore water pressure will be minimal and berm should he adequate.