Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> WARD OF ADdUS'PMFNT - Minutes <br /> August 27, 1981 <br /> Page 5 <br /> At. <br /> #1017. Motion by Harvey, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 8 <br /> feet from required setback from road and 11. 5 feet from required rear <br /> yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming as to both the rear yard <br /> and setback from road. Any alteration or addition would require <br /> a variance. <br /> 2. Addition wi. I ] he fart jar from road rind rear lot line than the <br /> existing residence. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion'carried. <br /> #1018. Motion by Kruschke, second by Harvey to grant a variance of 3.9 <br /> feet from required setback from road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1 . Applicant is third owner of property and was not in any way re- <br /> sponsible for the locating of the residence. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to provide zoning compliance to permit sale <br /> of property. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecesary hardship. <br /> #1019. Motion by Schwahn, second by Harvey to: <br /> (1) . Grant a variance of 27 feet (more or less) from required set- <br /> back from normal high waterline. <br /> (2) . Deny variances pertaining to re-division of lots. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> (1) . Proposed deck will be farther back from water than the existing <br /> residence. Denial of variance would not help to maintain shore- <br /> land protection. <br /> (2) . (a) . - <br /> Lots, as exist, were recorded prior to shoreland ordinance and <br /> are non-conforming. Lot 1-A has a residence and Lot B may be <br /> 'utilized for a residence. <br /> (b) . Access to river can be provided by easement in lieu of re-design <br /> of lots. <br /> (c) . Proposed re-design would substantially reduce the area of Lot <br /> 1-A. <br /> (d) . Applicant proposes re-design of lots to enhance market value. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1 . Proven case of unnecessary harc.ship. <br /> 2. Denial of variances for re-design of lots does not deny use- of <br /> property. Monetary gain or loss may not be construed as a hard- <br /> ship. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1002. Letter from and response to Ken Laufenberg, Blue Mounds, Section <br /> 1 . <br />