Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> August 27, 1981 <br /> Page 4 <br /> CONCLUSION: 1"1- <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardhship. <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 /> #1014. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 33 <br /> feet from required setback from S.T.H. 138. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. House is 75 years, more or less, old and existed prior to ordinance <br /> requirements and probably prior to .highway improvement. <br /> 2. House is non-conforming as to setback; alterations or addition <br /> "to most of the building could not be done unless a variance were <br /> granted. <br /> 3. Existing porch is very narrow and impractical. <br /> 4. Other farm buildings are closer to the road and porch addition wil <br /> not cause additional hazard for traffic. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> 3. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and isnot self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1015. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of <br /> 0.5 foot from the required setback from normal high waterline. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1 . Variance is necessary to permit utilization of existing walls of <br /> old boathouse. <br /> 2. Other boathouse in the area are as close or closer to the waterlin: . <br /> 3. Existing front wall would have to be removed and re-built if <br /> variance were denied. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necesary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3. Variance is not contrary to rights -of others or to the public in- <br /> terest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1016. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance from <br /> required setback from front property line. Setback of residence shall <br /> not be less than the average of the setback of the two adjacent resi- <br /> dences. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Variance is necessary to permit location of residence forward <br /> from large trees which are located across the (approximately) <br /> center of the lot. <br /> 2. Most of the residences on the road maintain an in-line setback. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> (1, 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried. <br />