Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OV ADJUSTMENT <br /> Minutes -- May 28, 1981 <br /> Page 2 <br /> (110 IN FAVOR: No appearance <br /> #990. Appeal by Robert R. Wall for a variance from required setback <br /> from road as provided by Section 10.17 (3) to permit location of an <br /> existing swimming pool at 4372 Glenwood Drive, Lot #1, Block #26 - 7th <br /> Addition Sunset Meadows, Section 29, Town of Windsor. <br /> IN FAVOR: R. Wall OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Telephone call <br /> from Town Chairman M. Cooper, Board is not in favor; letter to follow. <br /> #991. Appeal by Richard Fassbender for a variance from required setback <br /> from road as provided by Section 10. 17 (1) to permit construction of two <br /> silos at 8934 S.T.H. 19, NW 1/4 NW 1/4 - Section 9, Town of Berry. <br /> IN FAVOR: R. Fassbender OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None <br /> , <br /> #992. Appeal by Paul Syftestad for a Special Exception Permit as pro- <br /> vided by Section 11.05 (g) to fill and grade within 300 feet of Lake <br /> Mendota to improve Lot #18, Block #1, Second Ward Beach, Section 28, <br /> Town of Westport. <br /> IN FAVOR: P. Syftestad and Jeff Wick, contractor OPPOSED: None <br /> COMMUNICATION: Letter; Town Board and Planning Commission have no <br /> objection. <br /> #993. Appeal by The Clack Corporation for a variance from required left <br /> side yard as provided by Section 10. 14 (6) to permit location of existing <br /> storage silos at 4462 Duraform Lane, NW 1/4 SW 1/4- Section 32, Town <br /> of Windsor. <br /> IN FAVOR: Eric Graf, Attorney for Clack Corporation OPPOSED: None <br /> COMMUNICATION: Telephone call, Town Board Chairman - M. Cooper; no <br /> objection. <br /> #989. Recalled: IN FAVOR: D. Much OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: <br /> Letter, Town Board - no recommendation. <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #984. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 12 <br /> feet 6 inches from required setback from Commercial Avenue. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> Trot is only 40 Feet wide; a garage accessory y building could not he con- <br /> structed without a variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> 2. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> (110 3. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> 4. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br />