1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IO)/\I:U (`I'' ADJU;;'I'MI;N'I' - Minutes July 23-, 1081 Page 2 • The public hearing was closed. #1005. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant the Special Exception Permit as proposed. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . The mound is over 160 feet from river. Slope to river is minimal and siltation from project should not reach the river. The mound • will be sodded which again will prevent siltation or erosion. Pro- ject design is specified by State. CONCLUSION: The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not result in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedimenta- tion, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful con- ditions. Motion carried. #1006. Motion by Purcell , second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 18 feet from the required setback from normal high waterline. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Proposed addition is actually just enclosing of an existing deck which has been utilized for many years. The addition will not be closer to the lake than the existing deck. 2) . The 55 foot measurement is a horizontal distance and does not take into consideration the high bank, approximately 25' - 30' above the water, and which provides additional distance from the water. 3) . Other residences in the area have enclosed porches. (11, 4) . Deck may not be enclosed without a variance. • CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. d. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. • #1007. Motion by Harvey, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 40 feet from required rear yard. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Any other location would require removal of good trees or is pre- ' vented by septic location. 2) . Moving the garage back 10 feet from the residence would block a natural water way (swale) which runs across the right rear corner of lot . .1) . The garage is located 'l')-S0 feet from the side of the residence and a breezeway or other connection between hour.e and garage which r•nuld cause a non-conforming building location is very unlikely. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. c. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried.