Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT <br /> Meeting of Ja:ivary 22, 1981 <br /> PRESENT: Kruschke, Dahlk, Voges, Purcell, Schwahn <br /> ALSO PRESENT: Enger, Fleck. <br /> The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dahlk at 7:30 p.m. in Room <br /> #224 City-County Building to hold a public hearing as advertised by <br /> Class II Notice. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to approve the <br /> minutes of December 17, 1980 and January 20, 1981. Motion carried. <br /> The notice was read and the public hearing was opened. <br /> #960. Appeal by LeRoy Klecker for a variance from required setback from <br /> road, as provided by Section 10. 17 (3) , to permit the location of a <br /> solar collector at 1096 W. Medina Road, SE 1/4 NE 1/4 - Section 32, Town <br /> of Medina. <br /> IN FAVOR: L. Klecker OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: Letter from <br /> Town Board, in favor. <br /> #961. Appeal by Robert Spink for a Special Exception Permit to grade <br /> and fill within 300 feet of Badfish Creek, as provided by Section 10. 16 <br /> (7) (g) , in part of the 5 1/2 NE 1/4 - Section 5, Town of Rutland. <br /> IN FAVOR: R. Spink OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None <br /> #962. Appeal by Nicholas Abitante for a variance from required rear <br /> yard, as provided by Section 10. 16 (6) (a) 1 . and 10.01 (7) , to permit <br /> the existing location of a swimming pool at 5043 W. Clayton Road, <br /> SE 1/4 SE 1/4 - Section 2, Town of Fitchburg. <br /> IN FAVOR: N. Abitante OPPOSED: None COMMUNICATION: None <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> #960. Motion by Voges , second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 22 feet <br /> from the required setback from West Medina Road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Solar unit would be ineffective in complying location because <br /> other locations would be shaded by trees or house. <br /> 2. Air duct runs between house and unit must be as short as possible <br /> or the solar unit would again be ineffective. <br /> 3. Unit will not create a traffic hazard and town board is in favor <br /> of the variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a) . Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b) Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br />