1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B.O.A./Minutes/11/20/86 Page 7 L CONCLUSION: 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2). Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 3) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried - 5-0. Board of Adjustment member Mr. Quackenbush who is resident of neighborhood of the applicant, wishes the record to reflect that he has not spoken with applicant or his contractor regarding Appeal #1516. Appeal #1514. by Daniel Sinykin, agent for T. Lee Howard for a variance from required height of accessory building also a special exception permit to fill and grade within 300 feet of Lake Mendota also appeal of Zoning Administrator's interpretation as provided by Sections 11.03 (3) (c) , 10.26 (6) , 11.05 (3) & 10.26 (3) to permit boathouse as constructed at 4960 Borcher's Beach Road - Lot #8, Borcher' s Beach, Section 33, Town of Westport. IN FAVOR: D. Sinykin, T. L. Howard, G. Weir, R. Schultz OPPOSED: M. Simon, B. Brown Zoning Administrator William Fleck addressed the Board. Quackenbush/Jones (Re: buildng height) - to deny variance from maximum height of boathouses above the normal high water mark also to deny any further variance consideration for height of boathouse. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Irregardless of what determination of normal high watermark is utilized, it is found that fireplace/chimney, railing, sink cabinet and deck are in violation. 2) . Fireplace/chimney, railing, sink cabinet and deck obstruct neighbors view of the lake. CONCLUSION: 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried - 5-0. Quackenbush/Kruschke (Re: Special Exception Permit) to deny special exception permit to allow excavation, retaining walls and landscaping as completed. Also, to find that no further consideration be granted regarding this special exception at this time. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Excavation exceeds original special exception permit - original permit was issued for soils disturbing activity immediately surrounding proposed boathouse construction. 2) . Boathouse configuration and width was altered and enlarged contrary to original special exception permit. 3). Applicant has submitted no new engineering data for the boards consideration. CONCLUSION: 1) . The project as completed is in violation of the conditions 11.05 (4) necessary for the granting of Special Exception Permit. Motion carried - 5-0.