1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1; /,11 d :,tMFN M hut July 2 , 1981 Page 3 #1008. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell t y y 11 to grant the Special Exception Permit as proposed. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Project site is separated from closest point of the river by Exchange Street which is at a higher elevation than project site. NE to the river is approximately 150 feet with a grassed, minimal slope. Mound will be seeded or sodded preventing siltation/erosion. CONCLUSION: The project as planned, with specified conditions; will not re- sult in substantial detriment to navigable waters by erosion, sedi- mentation, impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. #996. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 27.5 • feet from required setback from normal high waterline. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Addition will not be closer to lake than the existing residence. 2) . The 47. 5 foot distance is a horizontal measurement and does not take into consideration the high bank which rises approximately 20 feet above the lake providing additional distance to the water for a total of 67 feet ±- 3) . Lots or parcels in the area are large and residences closer to the water are more than 100 foot distance and thus do not qualify to exempt the addition from the 75 foot setback. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. J�s67.Lr�a— r-fl2 1- 3,7,2_ I rznl.se.›fu #740-#747. Motion by Harvey to deny; Zoning Ordinance provisions as per Section 10.26 (9) show intent of 1 year expiration of authorization and although the Board may extend the authorization for a specific period, said extension should be based on reasons or hardship other than economic feasibility of the project. Second by Purcell; pending wetland legislation may impose different re- gulations on this property. Applicant has had ample time to commence with his project if he had so desired. Denial of extension does not prohibit re-application when Mr. Pfeiffer is ready to commence with his project. The Board should have the opportunity to review the project under current conditions. Motion carried. Motion by Purcell , second by Kruschke to request- Zoning Committee review of Ordinance pertaining to: ( 1) . Location of accessory buildings that would require the same side and rear yard as the principal building icy: 10. 16 (6) 1 & 2 Board suggest that a specific distance from side of principal building also be included. (2) . Possibility of exempting mound septic systems from requirement of a Special Exception Permit in shoreland areas. Motion carried.