Laserfiche WebLink
BOA MINUTES/11/29/90 <br /> Page 5 <br /> #2049. Schartel - Albion - 10/25/90: <br /> Quackenbush/Harvey to grant variance of 1 foot to required right sideyard to <br /> permit deck and 2-story residential addition. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> Quackenbush/Harvey to grant variance of 22 feet from required rearyard to <br /> permit 2-story living space addition. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> Quackenbush/Harvey to grant, with condition, variance of 22 feet from required <br /> rearyardto permit reduced deck from leftside of residence. <br /> CONDITION: <br /> 1). Left rear deck is limited to 4' x 6' maximum size. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). All additions constructed without required permits. <br /> 2). Sideyard encroachment extends no nearer to adjoining property than does <br /> existing residence. <br /> 3). Rearyard encroachment likewise is no nearer however extends upward via <br /> 2nd story. <br /> 4). 10' x 8' Left side deck is restricted in size to allow ingress nad egress <br /> only. <br /> 5). Flood zone permits also required. <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 - 4-0. <br /> #2051. Gilbertson - Blooming Grove - 10/25/90: <br /> Harvey/Kruschke to grant variances of 2.4 more or less feet from proposed left <br /> sideyard, 11 feet from required setback to Christianson Avenue and 2,880 <br /> square feet to each lot, from required lot areas to permit 2 equal redivison <br /> of 2 existing substandard lots. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). Board rejects revised proposed lot configuration received 11/29/90. <br /> 2). All structures exist on original platted subdivision - revised lot <br /> configuration requires CSM and variances. <br /> 3). Reconfiguration will allow and additional residence to be built on <br /> parcels. <br /> 4). Property is in an area of numerous non-conforming properties with <br /> variances granted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). Variances 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 - 4-0. <br /> L <br />