Laserfiche WebLink
BOA MIN 11/15/01 <br /> PAGE 1 <br /> ilW <br /> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES <br /> November 15, 2001 <br /> PRESENT: Sayles, Long, Ross, Kay and Klopp <br /> ALSO: Reynolds <br /> Meeting called to order at 6:30 P.M. in Room 2-F City-County Building by Chair Ross to <br /> hold Public Hearing as published by Class II Notice. <br /> MINUTES: Sayles/Klopp to amend minutes of Oct. 25, 01,RE: Appeal#3155, to <br /> read: " Motion Carried 3 —1 (Sayles—no) ". Motion Carried 4—0.(Kay— <br /> abstain). <br /> Sayles/Klopp to approve minutes of October 18 as submitted and October 25, 2001 as <br /> amended. Motion carried 4—0. (Kay—abstain) <br /> NOVEMBER HEARING ITEMS: <br /> #3161. Appeal by Kenneth&Nancy Schieldt for a variance from required setback from <br /> road as provided by Section 10.17(3)to permit additions to existing residence at 682 <br /> Tower Drive in the SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 24, Town of Dunkirk. <br /> IN FAVOR: K. Scheildt OPPOSED: -- COMMUNICATION: Town Board <br /> Kay/Long to grant, with condition, a variance of 1.6 feet from the minimum required <br /> setback from centerline to permit porch addition over existing foundation as proposed. <br /> CONDITION: Town board to clarify their response, to assure there is no objection by <br /> town. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1). Applicant proposes "in-fill" a corner of existing residence with 6.6 feet x 23.6 feet <br /> sun porch addition. <br /> 2). Enclosure addition atop existing stoop foundation. <br /> 3). Existing residence sits slightly off parallel with right-of-way line. <br /> 4). Appears proposed 10 x 12 feet deck could be located without requiring variance per <br /> 10.16(4)(e). <br /> 5). Residence constructed in the early 1900's. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to <br /> applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried. 5 —0. <br />