Laserfiche WebLink
B.O.A./Minutes/11/20/86 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br /> #1506. Campbell/Eichens - Vermont. <br /> Miller/Jones to grant setback variances of 15 feet more or less from <br /> centerline CTH F and 23 feet more or less from centerline Ryan Road to allow <br /> porch addition to existing residence. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Structure replaces porch in need of major repair. <br /> 2) . Town Board and County Highway both are in favor of granting variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> 3) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br /> #1507. Stravinski - Vienna. <br /> Kruschke/Quackenbush to grant, with conditions, a variance of 36 feet more or <br /> less from right-of-way CTH V to allow construction of canopy over existing gas <br /> islands. <br /> CONDITIONS: <br /> The structure shall be removed at the owner' s expense if future road <br /> improvements require additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Canopy replaces and enlarges existing canopy. <br /> 2) . Canopy is supported by pillars located on gas islands and presents no <br /> vision obstruction. <br /> 3) . County Highway has acquired additional right-of-ways and has no <br /> objections. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> 2) . Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br /> #1508. Maly/Holtan - Westport. <br /> Miller/Quackenbush to approve variance of 6 feet more or less from required <br /> right sideyard also variance of 32 feet more or less from required setback <br /> from normal high watermark to allow construction of residential garage. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Existing garage in poor condition is proposed to be replaced by new <br /> structure. <br /> 2) . New garage will utilize existing foundation. <br /> 3) . New garage not extend as near as normal high watermark as existing <br /> residence. <br /> 4) . Property is in an area of numerous non-conforming structures. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> 2) . Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried - 5-0. <br />