1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES 6/22/95 PAGE 5 #2645. Appeal by Donald Squire, Jr. for a variance from required sideyard as provided by Section 10. 05 (7) and 10. 16 (6a) to permit single family residence as constructed at 2363 Squire Lane being Lot 2, Hanson's Hill - Section 16, Town of Pleasant Springs. IN FAVOR: D. Squire, C. Rowley OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: - RLOPP/SAYLES to grant variance of 5. 25 feet from required sideyard to permit residence, as constructed, to be altered. Motion failed - 2-3, (Quackenbush, Dreps and Gaskill, no) . FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) . Appeal is a re-application of previous denial (Appeal #2610 3/23/95) to which Board has waived 1 year re-apply prohibition. 2) . Applicant proposes to move sidewall of garage into complying location and roof overhang to remain. 3) . Contractor error resulted in side and rearyard encroachments. Rezone has resolved rearyard violation. 4) . Conclusion as stated in minutes of 3/23/95 has remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Unnecessary hardship not proven. 1) . Motion to approve has failed and thereby denial remains. #2646. Appeal by Daniel Palmer for a variance from required setback from normal high watermark as provided by Section 11. 03 (2) to permit construction of new single family residence at 6922 Frenchtown Road in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 - Section 22, Town of Montrose. IN FAVOR: D. Palmer, E. Roseberg, R. Hodel OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board, Department of Natural Resources GASRILL/DREPS to grant, with condition, Variance of 47 more or less feet from required setback to normal high watermark to permit construction of new single family residence as proposed. CONDITION: 1) . Residence shall be setback 63 . 5 feet from centerline of Frenchtown Road (and over original building location) and in precise configuration and dimension as plan submitted. (to include 10 ' x 18 ' deck also as per plan) . FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) . Property is severely limited in buildable area due to setback required from normal high watermark, setback from road, flood zone, trees and contour. 2) . Proposed new residence is over site of older residence not structurally sound enough for additions. 3) . The meandering course of the Sugar River has been altered by erosion. 4) . Expanding family necessitates additional space requirement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: (Ow 1) . Variance if not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible