1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ISI �! it IA !o Ii I!II i ' I(,1 June 2',, 1'181 Page 5 #1002. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to deny. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Mr. Murphy, agent for Ken Laufenberg, did not present any facts to verify an unnecessary hardship. 2. Mr. Laufenberg was informed by the zoning inspector of possible set- back problems before the front portion of the building was formed- up or the cement poured. 3. Mr. Laufenberg continued construction after placement of "red tag" , stop work order, by the zoning inspector. 4. Mr. Laufenberg refused to obtain a surveyor verification until forced to do so by stipulated agreement in legal action. 5. There are no topographical problems which would have prevented the building from being located in compliance with setback CONCLUSION: 1. Mr. Laufenberg, being duly informed and ultimately responsible, created his own hardship. 2. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. #1003. Motion by Purcell, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 26 feet from required setback from C.T.H. "H" . Granted. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Variance had been granted previously under #842 but had expired because of failure to obtain a zoning permit. 2. Finding of fact and conclusion remain as before. 4L, Motion carried. #1004. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 2.4 feet from required setback from North Court. Granted. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Property slopes down from the back of the residence to the front with a drop of approximately 7 feet. Side lot also slopes steeply from side of residence down to North Court. Therefore outside access to residence from the North Court side would require walking in the road. CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. Motion carried. • #990. Motion by Dahlk, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 16 feet from required setback from Gray Road for the existing, above ground pool; replacement of pool or change in location shall comply with locational requi remerlt r: of Zoning Ordinance. II NI)!N(C (II' TACT: 1 . Property is restricted front and rear with road- setbacks instead of only one in front. 2. Location of residence, underground power line and required side yard created locational problems. • CONCLUSION: 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. 2. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried.