Laserfiche WebLink
:;ept emhei 'l , MI <br /> Page 3 <br /> 4. Applicants stated <br /> pP hardships <br /> were: (a) . preservation of existing <br /> viewing area for showing of 8 or 9 full-scale model cows in a <br /> similated milking procedure. Denial of variance would force a <br /> reduction in the number of cows. (b) . Preservation of "historic" <br /> milking parlor building. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Establishment and location of pertinent lot line and subse- <br /> quent re-zone which required a minimum 10 foot side yard were <br /> self-imposed hardships. <br /> 2. Although desirous or perhaps somewhat more impressive, 8 or 9 <br /> full scale model cows are not required to show a milking parlor <br /> operation. One model cow along with recorded information could <br /> actually suffice for said purpose. <br /> 3. Existing building can be altered or re-designed to facilitate <br /> the intended use without loss of "historic value"; the loca- <br /> tion is still the "original site" of the Bowman Farms milking <br /> parlor. <br /> 4. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. <br /> #1021. Boathouse building has been removed; square foot area variance <br /> is not. required. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a <br /> variance of 5 feet 10 inches from required left side yard and a variance <br /> (10 <br /> of 20 feet from required setback from front property line. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Location of existing tree and buildings prevent complying loca- <br /> tion for proposed building. <br /> 2. Other garages in the area encroach into required setback and side <br /> yards. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessaryhardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1022. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 2 <br /> feet from required left side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Location is very limited because of existing buildings and trees. <br /> 2. Width of solar facility is required to provide necessary area for <br /> ventilation (pool. i ng capability) in the :rummer. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary ha rdship. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1023. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 9 <br /> feet from required setback from C.T.H. "UN" . CONDITION: The entry shall <br /> be removed at the owners expense if future road improvement requires <br /> additional right-of-way. <br /> • <br />