Laserfiche WebLink
v,qwt, - rill II <br /> June 25, 1981 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 111:: 3. Proposed location is necessary to alleviate any interior changes <br /> in barn ie: existing stantions, milking setup, etc. which would <br /> be necessary if variance were denied. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #999. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to deny. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. No reason or hardship was presented, other than convenience, for <br /> the necessity of side yard encroachment. Lot is level with no <br /> topographical problem. <br /> 2. Denial of variance will not prevent building of an addition; a <br /> different design will more than likely be necessary but this does <br /> not constitute a hardship. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1 . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1000. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant the Special <br /> Exception Permit as per the project plan submitted. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> The plan addresses all aspects of Board 's concern pertaining to <br /> siltation, erosion, water pollution, safe and healthful conditions <br /> and impairment of fish or aquatic life. The plan was prepared by <br /> Warzyn Engineering as per S.C.S. specifications and is designed to <br /> be sensitive to the conservancy values of the river and its associated <br /> wetlands. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> The plan complies with reauirements of the- Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #1001. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 14 <br /> feet from the required setback from C.T.H. "F" . <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1 . Addition will be in-line with existing barn. <br />' • 2.. A past variance on this property permitted a silo to be even <br /> closer to the road. <br /> 3. Addition does not create .r traffic hazard. <br /> 4. Denial of variance will not. change existing setback conditions. <br /> CONCLUSTON: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <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 />