2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOA MINUTES 9/20/01 PAGE 2 CIF Conclusion: 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried 5-0. #3150. Appeal by Timothy and Kelly Kleist for a variance from required sideyard as provided by Section 10.07(7) and 10.17(3) to permit structural alteration/addition to existing residence at 3436 Quam Drive in the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 26,Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: K. Kleist OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board KLOPP/LONG to grant variance of 1.3 feet from required left sideyard to permit structural alteration of existing residence as completed. Finding of fact: 1). Applicant in process of re-roofing encountered slightly pitched roof in need of structural repair and converted to more desirable pitched roof. 2). Foot print of existing nonconforming structure remains unchanged. 3). Property is a corner lot and limited by setbacks form 2 roads. (iv 4). Property is in an area of numerous nonconforming structures with numerous variances. Conclusion: 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried 5-0. #3151. Appeal by Michael Sherry et al. for a variance from required lot width as provided by Section 11.03(1) and 10.05(4)to permit lot line adjustment by Certified Survey Map at 2234 and 2238 US Highway 51 being Lots 2, and 3 Washington Park, and adjacent lands in the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 and NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 23, Town of Dunn. IN FAVOR: M. Sherry OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: -- KAY/SA\YLES to grant a variance of 1 foot+from minimum required lot width of lots within shoreland district to allow lot reconfiguration by CSM as proposed. Finding of fact: 1). Applicant proposes to combine 3 originally platted lots in 2 lots by CSM. 2). Lands to be added,presently is a vacant lot between 2 residences. 3). Proposal reduces density around sensitive lake properties. Conclusion: 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. ,, 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried 5-0.