1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES/9/27/90 Page 6 2). North Court is 20 feet right-of-way and seldom traveled. 3). Similar variance granted neighbor directly across North Court. CONCLUSION: 1). Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or the public iterest. Motion carried - 4-0. #2039. Appeal by Frances Ryan and JoAnn Myrick for a variance from required setback from normal high watermark as provided by Sections 11.03(2) an 10.16(4) to permit additions to residence and boathouse at 2420 CTH AB being Lots 13 and 14, Pike Front - Section 14, Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: F. Ryan OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board, County Highway, D.N.R. Quackenbush/Harvey to grant variance of 40 more or less feet from required setback to normal high watermark to permit sunroom addition to existing residence as constructed. Also, to hold in abeyance until October Hearing decision regarding deck, as constructed over existing boathouse pending engineer determination of actual setback to normal high watermark. FINDING OF FACT: 1). Actual setback variance from normal high watermark appears to be less than granted however verification was not provided. 2). Sunroom built without required permit. 3). Deck addition to boathouse further encroaches normal high watermark and attaches to residence. CONCLUSION: 1). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 2). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. Motion carried - 4-0. #2040. Appeal by James Poehlman, agent for John Cannarella for a Special Exception Permit as provided by Section 11.05(3) to permit filling, grading, etc. , within 300 feet of Lake Mendota being Lots 25 and 26, Block 2, Second Ward Beach - Section 28, Town of Westport. IN FAVOR: J. Poehlman OPPOSED: E. Farnsworth, P. Shaub COMMUNICATION: Town Board. Quackenbush/Rendall to deny requested special exception permit to allow fill/grade and landscaping as completed. FINDING OF FACT: 1). Applicant has previous permit granted however construction not per plan. 2). Neighbors have experienced flooding and additional water problems and object to new request. 3). Applicants have reconsideration and appeal processes available to them. 4). Objectors have provided engineering data disputing compliance with special exception permit standards. 5). Town Board objects to new plan and hopes satisfactory solution can be achieved. CONCLUSION: 1). Permit denied as per plans submitted.