Laserfiche WebLink
BOA MINUTES/8/23/90 <br /> Page 7 <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). The project as constructed could not insure that it would not result in <br /> substantial detriment to intermittent waters by erosion, sedimentation, <br /> impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> #1932. Mariner's - Westport - 12/21/89. <br /> Quackenbush/Rendall to deny request permit to allow filling of lands for <br /> parking areas as proposed. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources both recommend <br /> denial. <br /> 2). Areas are proposed for parking lots for vehicles and boat trailers. <br /> 3). Army Corps of Engineers has not yet responded. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). The project as constructed could not insure that it would not result in <br /> substantial detriment to intermittent waters by erosion, sedimentation, <br /> impairment of fish or aquatic life, or safe and healthful conditions. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> #1991. Mertens - Cottage Grove - 6/28/90 P.H. <br /> Harvey/Quackenbush to hold in abeyance until September Public Hearing upon <br /> request of applicant to allow time to approach neighbor regarding transfer of <br /> land to resolve sideyard encroachment. <br /> 411, Motion carried - 4-0. <br /> #2001. Hollis - Bristol - 7/26/90 P.H. <br /> No action. <br /> #2007. Manchester - Dunn - 7/26/90 P.H. <br /> No action. <br /> #2008. Moberly - Dunn - 7/26/90 P.H. <br /> Quackenbush/Harvey to grant, with condition, variance of 10 feet from required <br /> setback to Quam Drive to permit construction of residential garage. <br /> CONDITION: <br /> 1). The structure shall be removed at the owner's expense if future road <br /> improvement requires additional right-of-way. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1). Applicant has withdrawn sideyard variance requests. <br /> 2). New relocated garage is to be built rather than reconstruct old structure <br /> in need of repair. <br /> 3). Numerous non-conforming structures, some with variances in area. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> 2). Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. <br /> Motion carried - 4-0. <br />