1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA/Minutes/4/28/94 Page 3 #2498 . Appeal by Gerard Ramsden for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10. 17 (2) to permit construction of residential garage and accessory building at 2276 CTH AB in the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 - Section 23, Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: G. Ramsden OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board KLOPP/GASKILL to grant with conditon variance of 41 feet from required setback to right-of-way of CTH AB to permit residential garage and storage shed as proposed. CONDITION: 1) . The structures shall be removed at the owner ' s expense if future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Garage will be setback from highway right-of-way 1 foot with roof overhang not to extend beyond right-of-way line. 2) . New structure will replace garage which extends into County Highway right-of-way. 3) . Lot slopes away from road and to locate elsewhere would require fill within shoreland district. 4) . Garage and shed needed for vehicle and lawn item storage. CONCLUSION: 1) . ..Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2) . iliariance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried - 3-0. #2499 . Appeal by Larry & Donna Mahr for a variance from required setback from road as provided by Section 10. 17 (2) to permit reconstruction of accessory building at 5632 CTH A in the NW SE 1/4 - Section 21, Town of Oregon. IN FAVOR: L. Mahr OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: --- GASKILL/RLOPP to grant, with condition variance of 25 feet more or less from required setback to centerline of CTH A to permit reconstruction of farm accessory building as proposed. CONDITION: 1) . The structure shall be removed at the owner's expense if future road improvement requires additional right-of-way. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Structure to be rebuilt over existing foundation. 2) . Existing barn nearer if not into highway right-of-way. 3) . Reconstructed building to be utilized for agricultural purposes. 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 - 3-0.