Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> August 28,1980 <br /> Page 8 <br /> 2. Second story addition will utilize space under a new raised roof <br /> (110 <br /> which must be constructed to alleviate existing flat roof <br /> leakage problem. <br /> 3. Addition will not be closer to lake than the existing residence. <br /> 4. Enforcement of setback for second story will not provide shore- <br /> land protection on this parcel. <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 /> 1 #907. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 9 <br /> r feet (more or less) from required setback from C.T.H. "M" to allow con- <br /> struction of a garage addition to the residence or an accessory garage <br /> building. Said construction may not be closer to C.T.H. "M" than the <br /> existing residence. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> Y <br /> 1. Problem or hardship was created by developer/builder who did not <br /> comply with required building location, etc. when house was <br /> built. <br /> 2. County Highway Department does not object to a variance which <br /> will limit construction no closer to the road than the house. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> • <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> , (100 <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #910. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to deny. <br /> State will not permit a sign at the proposed location. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #872. Motion by Schwahn, second by Voges to correct minutes of March <br /> 27, 1980; variance granted was 26 feet instead of the 24 feet as stated <br /> i by minutes. Motion carried. <br /> #786. Motion by Purcell, second by Voges to reconsider and grant a <br /> 10 foot variance from required setback from road. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. No one appeared in opposition at the public hearing on June 28, 19 '9. <br /> 2. Similar 10 foot variances have been granted in this area, in ract, <br /> on adjacent parcels. <br /> 3. The ' own Board has approved or stated no objection to the garage <br /> setback variances in this area because they helped to alleviate <br /> parking on the road problems. <br /> 4. Steep slope from road down to lake would require more fill, larger <br /> retaining wall, etc. to compensate for a location set back farther <br /> from road. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> . b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 1 <br /> 1 <br />