Laserfiche WebLink
1Kt, I) il?' ALhiU. <br /> Minutes - June 26, 1980 <br /> Page 5 <br /> fast growing grasses to prevent siltation or erosion. <br /> 461, FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Shoreline bank will be protected by rip-rap under Department of <br /> Natural Resources permit. <br /> 2. Fill is not in a water-way and will not affect natural drainage <br /> in the area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> Rip-rap and sod or seed as required by condition of permit should <br /> alleviate any siltation or erosion or damage to fish and aquatic <br /> life. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #900. Motion by Voges, second by Kruschke to grant permit as proposed <br /> for the lake-side of Reynolds Avenue. Final grade shall be subject to <br /> Board of Adjustment approval. Motion by Voges, second by Kruschke to <br /> grant permit for the marsh side of Reynolds Avenue subject to Department <br /> of Natural Resources specification and approval. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Most of the properties in this area have been filled. <br /> 2. Area is not in. a drainage or natural water-way and fill is to <br /> alleviate incursion of water caused by high lake level. <br /> 3. Final grade will be lower on the left side, facing the property <br /> from the road, and higher along the right property line to insure <br /> that normal run-off of water does not add to the problems of the <br /> lot on the right which is lower in elevation. <br /> 4. Fill will not cause an increase in siltation or erosion or harm <br /> (hW fish and aquatic life. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #901. Motion by Kruschke, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 4 <br /> feet from required right side yard. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Building was constructed when no side yard was required by <br /> ordinance. <br /> 2. Addition will be in-line with the existing building and will not <br /> encroach farther into side yard. <br /> 3. Other location of receiving dock facility would not be feasible <br /> and would require major re-design and alteration of plant interio.. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> d. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #902. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to deny variances requested <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Testimony by Mr. Paul and by Contractor, Wm. Regali, disclosed th.t <br /> addition to main building and the accessory building were located <br />