Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - Minutes <br /> February 28, 1980 <br /> Page 3 <br /> (IV*' FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Residence was made non-conforming by construction of Woodland <br /> Road. <br /> 2. Porch is farther from road than residence. <br /> t 3. Parcel is a corner lot but reduced setback as provided by Sec- <br /> - <br /> — tion 10.16 (5) (b) cannot be utilized because Woodland Road is <br /> not within a plat. Other properties in the area can utilize <br /> this provisions as the pertinent roads are included in plats. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necesary to provide right enjoyed by others <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the publi4 <br /> interest. <br /> d. Hardship is caused by the Ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #868. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 260 <br /> feet from the required distance from an intersection. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Sign is necessary for business location identification. <br /> 2. Neither the Town nor County Highway Department has an objection <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 /> #869. Motion by Voges, second by Kruschke to deny. <br /> 1. There is adequate area on the lot in which to locate the building <br /> without a variance. <br /> 2. Design of building could be changed to provide the same amount of <br /> floor area without encroaching into setback area. <br /> 3. Testimony presented at public hearing disclosed that there were <br /> no severe limitations on property which would prevent conforming <br /> location of building. Areas to West, North and East of proposed <br /> building are already being considered for future expansion. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> Unnecessary hardship not proven. Motion carried. Dahlk voting <br /> no. <br /> #870. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 7 feet <br /> from the required setback from U.S.H. 51. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. Existing residence is non-conforming as to setback. <br /> 2. Porch addition will not be closer to highway than the residenc,• <br /> 3. Porch addition will not cause a traffic hazard. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecesary hardship. <br /> b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the <br /> public interest. <br /> CS) Motion carried. <br />