Laserfiche WebLink
ri....%6***4****%***41%.1 <br /> B.O.A./Minutes/11/17/88 4 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 3). Similar variances granted in area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> #1792. Harvey/Quackenbush to deny requested variances from required lot <br /> widths and area. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). Property has an existing residence and has been utilized as single lot. <br /> 2). Proposed multiple splits will maximize saleability of lots. <br /> 3). Certified survey requirement necessitates variances. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). Unnecessary hardship was not proven. <br /> Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> #1793. Harvey/Quackenbush to deny variance from required setback from normal <br /> high watermark to permit construction of inground swim pool, do to applicant's <br /> failure to appear at public hearing. <br /> Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> Petition from previous hearings: <br /> #1776. Harvey/Quackenbush to hold in abeyance until December 22nd public <br /> hearing pending submittal of engineering plans and data. <br /> Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> #1777. Rendall/Quackenbush to grant with condition. Variance of 16 feet more <br /> or less from required setback to normal high watermark to permit freeze/cooler <br /> erection. <br /> • <br /> CONDIION: <br /> 1) . Structure is intended to be portable with no permanent attachment to <br /> ground. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). Cooler will be substituted for dumpster within existing enclosure. <br /> 2) . Structure is intended to be incorporated into proposed restaurant <br /> addition in 4 years more or less. <br /> 3). Structure would be comparative to boathouse which could be legally <br /> located similarily. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> #1779. Appearances: IN FAVOR: B. Kaufman, V. Koch OPPOSED: D. Carlson, <br /> D. Muxfeld, L. Lutz. <br /> Harvey/Rendall: to hold in abeyance to allow review of materials submitted <br /> also to confir with Corporation Counsel if so deemed necessary. <br /> Motion carried - 3-0. <br />