Laserfiche WebLink
BOA/Minutes/4/28/94 <br /> Page 2 <br /> #2496. Appeal by James and Elizabeth Whitehorse for a variance <br /> from required setback from normal high watermark as provided by <br /> Section 11. 03 (2) to permit proposed addition to existing residence <br /> at 2984 Waubesa Avenue being Lot #4, Block #2, Section 5, Town of <br /> Dunn. <br /> IN FAVOR: B. Whitehorse OPPOSED: ---- COMMUNICATION: Town <br /> Board <br /> KLOPP/GASRILL To grant variance of 11. 35 feet from setback to <br /> normal high watermark of Lake Waubesa to permit second story <br /> addition to existing residence. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Addition will be entirely over existing footprint of <br /> residence. <br /> 2) . Addition will be over existing flat roofed area that has had <br /> water leak problems. <br /> 3) . Added space will be bedroom and closet enlargement. <br /> 4) . Property is in an area of numerous non-conforming structures <br /> and numerous similar variances granted. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible <br /> without injustice to applicant. <br /> 2) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> y.. <br /> #2497. Appeal by Steve & Cindy Nicholson for a variance from <br /> required setback from normal high watermark as provided by Section <br /> 11. 03 (2) to permit inground swim pool as proposed and also for a <br /> Special Exception Permit as provided by Section 11. 05 (3) to permit <br /> filling, grading, etc. , within 300 feet of Lake Harriet at 5809 Sun <br /> Valley Parkway in the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 - Section 8 , Town of Oregon. <br /> IN FAVOR: D. Weber OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: --- <br /> GASKILL/KLOPP to deny requested variance from setback to normal <br /> high watermark to permit construction of in-ground swim pool . <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1) . Applicant proposes to locate swim pool between residence and <br /> normal high watermark of Lake Harriet. <br /> 2) . Appears applicant through locational change or design <br /> alteration could construct without need for variance. <br /> 3) . Pool is not a permitted structure within required setback to <br /> normal high watermark. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> Also, GASRILL/KLOPP to hold Special Exception Permit request in <br /> abeyance, not beyond June Hearing, to allow submittal of new plans <br /> due to relocation of pool site. Motion carried - 3-0. <br /> L <br />