1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

: ,I ADJUSTMENT - Minutes November 20, 1980 Page 2 law The public hearing was closed. #948. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to deny. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Appeal was based, in part, upon difference in interpretation of "maximum height" . Builder assumed 12 ' maximum eave height while Zoning Ordinance provides for a 12' mean (averaged) height. 2. Mistake was an inadvertant error - Mr. Schaller did not specifi- cally read the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Compliance with maximum height would require a different type roof but it would not look as good as the existing building. 4. Maximum permitted height was specifically noted on face of permit and builder is charged with the responsibility of knowing the Ordinance, requirements under which he is working. 5. No other accessory building height variances have been granted in this area nor are there any existing accessory buildings that exceed the maximum permitted height. CONCLUSION: a. Difference in interpretation, assumptions, inadvertant error or aesthetic appearance may not be considered as a basis for a variance. They do not qualify as an unnecessary hardship. b. There are alternate methods of construction which may be utilized to provide required door height without exceeding the maximum permitted height. c. Variance is not necessary to provide a right enjoyed by others in the area. d. Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried. #949. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to grant a variance of 3 1/2 feet from required side yards with the condition that buildings must maintain a minimum separation of 13 feet. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Location of existing residences, gas lines, and seasonal high water area preclude other location for the additions. 2. Other residences in the area are as close or closer to side lot lines. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. Motion carried. #950. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of feet from required rear yard with the condition that fencing will be in- stalled, around the pool or along lot lines, that will provide a noise and pool light barrier. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Pool location would not comply unless it was turned lengthwise across the rear yard. This would cause a blocking of the natural drainage swale which runs diagonally across the rear yard with probable adverse effects on the property to the rear.